ACHIEVING EFFICIENT

WATER MANAGEMENT

A Guidebook for Preparing

Agricultural Water Conservation Plans

December 1996

Prepared by

SECOND EDITION

September 2000

Updated by

Bureau of Reclamation

Table of Contents

i

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................. . iv

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION .................................... . 1

WHY RECLAMATION PREPARED THIS GUIDEBOOK ............... . 2

WATER CONSERVATION VERSUS WATER MANAGEMENT .......... . 3

WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDEBOOK? ........................... . 4

WHAT IS GOOD WATER MANAGEMENT? ......................... . 5

WHY DO WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING? ..................... . 6

Benefits of Good Water Management Planning .................... . 6

Pitfalls Avoided by Good Water Management Planning ............. . 7

Organization of this Guidebook ............................... . 7

SECTION TWO – THE PLANNING PROCESS ........................... . 9

OVERVIEW .................................................. . 10

The Importance of Public Involvement ......................... . 15

STEP 1 – INFORMATION GATHERING ........................... . 17

Overview ............................................... . 17

Checklist of Information Needs ............................... . 17

STEP 2 – IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING ISSUES ............... . 21

Overview ............................................... . 21

Identifying Issues ......................................... . 21

Water Budget Concept ..................................... . 23

Checklist of Typical Issue Areas .............................. . 28

Setting Priorities .......................................... . 34

STEP 3 – SETTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................... . 37

What are Goals? .......................................... . 37

Goal Setting ............................................. . 37

Example Goal Statements ................................... . 39
Table of Contents

ii

STEP 4 – IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE MEASURES CAPABLE OF

 ACHIEVING SPECIFIC GOALS .......................... . 42

STEP 5 – EVALUATING THE CANDIDATE MEASURES ............. . 46

Overview ............................................... . 46

Describing the Effects of Candidate Measures .................... . 46

Displaying and Comparing Your Evaluations .................... . 50

STEP 6 – DEFINING A PLAN OF ACTION ......................... . 52

Overview ............................................... . 52

Selecting Measures for Implementation ......................... . 52

Other General Considerations ................................ . 54

Projecting Results of Selected Measures ........................ . 57

Preparing an Implementation Schedule and Budget ................ . 58

Preparing a Monitoring Program ............................. . 59

STEP 7 – IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OF ACTION ................. . 61

STEP 8 – MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS ............ . 62

STEP 9 – EVALUATING PROGRESS AND UPDATING THE PLAN ..... . 63

SECTION THREE – CATALOG OF WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES . . 65

FUNDAMENTAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............. . 66

Water Measurement and Accounting Systems .................... . 66

Water Pricing Structure .................................... . 68

Educational Programs ...................................... . 71

Designating a Water Conservation Coordinator .................. . 72

INSTITUTIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............. . 73

Water Shortage Contingency Plan ............................ . 73

On-farm Conservation Incentives ............................. . 75

Water Transfers .......................................... . 76

Land Management ........................................ . 78

OPERATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............... . 80

Improved Operating Procedures .............................. . 80

Distribution Control ....................................... . 82

System-wide Irrigation Scheduling ............................ . 83

On-farm Irrigation Scheduling ............................... . 86

Conjunctive Use .......................................... . 88

FACILITIES-RELATED WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ........ . 92

Construction of Regulatory Reservoirs ......................... . 92

Lining of Canals and Reservoirs .............................. . 94

Water Reuse Systems ...................................... . 96

Installation of Remote or Automated Controls ................... . 98
Table of Contents

iii

SECTION FOUR – ASSEMBLING A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... . 99

WHY DO YOU NEED A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DOCUMENT? . 100

SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR THE PLAN DOCUMENT .............. . 101

Management Plan Document – Suggested Outline ............... . 101

SPRINGFIELD IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER 

MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................... . Example Plan-1

GLOSSARY ...................................................... . G-1

APPENDIX ....................................................... . A-1

Resources - Documents ......................................... . A-2

Resources - Consumptive Use .................................... . A-6

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: The Planning Process ................................... . 11

Table 1: The Process for Preparing and Implementing Water

Management (Conservation Plans) ......................... . 12

Figure 2: Typical Components of a Water Budget ..................... . 23

Figure 3: Ideal Water Measurement System .......................... . 24

Table 2: Example Monthly Water Budget ........................... . 26

Figure 4: Evaluation Matrix ...................................... . 51

Figure 5: Types of Water Pricing Structures ......................... . 69

Figure 6: Water Conservation Through Improvements in System-wide

Irrigation Scheduling ................................... . 84

Figure 7: Irrigation Scheduling Based on Soil Moisture Status ............ . 87

Figure 8: Conjunctive Use Program Which Takes Advantage of a

Nearby Groundwater Supply .............................. . 90

Figure 9: A Possible Demand and Supply Relationship and the Potential 

Benefit in Flexibility from Regulatory Storage ................. . 93

Figure 10: Irrigation Water Reuse Systems to Capture Spills and Drainage ... . 96
Abbreviations and Acronyms

iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms

af acre-foot

Act Clean Water Act

CAP Central Arizona Project

CCID Central California Irrigation District

CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System 

CVP Central Valley Project

Districts Arnold and North Unit Irrigation Districts 

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ET evapotranspiration

FIRI Farm Irrigation Rating Index

Guidebook Achieving Efficient Water Management: A Guidebook for Preparing

Agricultural Water Conservation Plans

Handbook Incentive Pricing Handbook for Agricultural Water Districts

IMS Irrigation Management Service

M&I municipal and industrial

maf million acre feet

MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NCWCD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

O&M operation and maintenance

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RRA Reclamation Reform Act

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Warren Act Warren Act of February 21, 1991

WCUA Water Conservation and Utilization Act 
Introduction

1

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overview of what this Guidebook is about, including: 

L Why the Bureau of Reclamation prepared this Guidebook

L Water conservation versus water management 

L Who should use this Guidebook

L What is good water management 

L Why do water management planning 

L Organization of the Guidebook 
Section One

2

WHY RECLAMATION PREPARED THIS GUIDEBOOK 

The Bureau of Reclamation prepared this Guidebook to help

agricultural water districts and irrigation organizations prepare

water conservation and management plans to achieve more

efficient water use. The Guidebook is aimed at organizations of

all sizes and complexities, both Federally-supplied and private. 

The first edition of this Guidebook was prepared in 1996 by

Hydrosphere Resource Consultants under contract with

Reclamation. As a result of ongoing experience with districts

and other organizations, Reclamation determined that the

Guidebook required updating. This “Second Edition” has been

updated by Reclamation.

Products such as this manual support and strengthen

Reclamation's overall water management mission. Through

products such as this, Reclamation hopes to cooperatively work

with others to improve water resource management and the

efficiency of water use throughout the western United States. In

particular, this manual supports Reclamation's responsibility

under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Sections 210a and

210b) and other Reclamation law, to encourage more efficient

water use by the districts it serves. 
Introduction

3

WATER CONSERVATION VERSUS WATER MANAGEMENT 

One objective of this Guidebook is to help districts prepare

water conservation plans called for in Section 210(b) of the

Reclamation Reform Act. However, the methods and measures

described in the Guidebook are more broadly aimed at helping

districts improve their overall water management. The term

“water conservation” has different meanings to different people. 

To some, it even has negative connotations. Therefore, when

“water conservation” is used in this Guidebook, it means “good

water management and efficient water use.” We encourage you

to take this broader view as you use this Guidebook. 
Section One

4

WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDEBOOK

This Guidebook is meant to be used by irrigators, the managers

and staff of irrigation organizations, consultants hired by

irrigation organizations, States, and others to improve water

management at the farm and the district level. Throughout this

Guidebook, the term "you" refers to district management and

staff members or others responsible for preparation of water

management plans. 
Introduction

5

WHAT IS GOOD WATER MANAGEMENT? 

To the farmer, good water management means getting the right

amount of water to the crops at the right time with minimum

labor and expense. If this can be accomplished without creating

other problems, such as a build-up of salt in the soil or losing

water to spills and seepage, so much the better. 

To the irrigation district or ditch company, good water

management means meeting the water needs of its customers as

efficiently as possible, with minimum waste or loss. Good

water management is, therefore, fundamentally important to

good overall district management. 

To society, good water management means having adequate

supplies of good quality water for all municipal, industrial,

agricultural, recreational, and environmental needs. Those in

charge of operating water supply and delivery systems bear the

greatest burden of responsibility for promoting and achieving

the good water management demanded by society. 
Section One

6

WHY DO WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING?

Planning is the process of thinking ahead to achieve desired

future outcomes and to avoid undesired future pitfalls. It is

something we all do at many levels every day of our lives. 

There are benefits to be gained and risks to be avoided by water

management planning. 

Benefits of Good Water Management Planning

Water management planning can benefit both the irrigation

district and the irrigator, as well as third parties and the

environment. The range of potential benefits includes: 

• Better water service to customers 

• More effective use of available water supply 

• Reduced operating costs 

• Improved revenues to the district 

• Improved crop yields and quality 

• Reduced on-farm costs 

• Development of additional water supply capabilities

• Improved water quality and aquatic habitat 

• Habitat maintenance for endangered species 

• Better documentation of uses and accomplishments

• Education of customers and the public 

• Diminished groundwater overdraft 

• Improved system and water supply reliability 

• Postponed need for new or expanded water supplies

• Reduced drought impacts 
Introduction

7

Pitfalls Avoided by Good Water Management Planning

There are a variety of problems and pitfalls that can be avoided

by good water management planning. Some of these could

affect the district and its customers immediately and others

could pose future threats. Some examples of undesirable

situations that might be avoided through good planning are: 

• Daily and seasonal water shortages 

• Excessive losses or spills from water delivery systems

• Over- or under-application of water on farm fields

• Insufficient carryover supplies in reservoirs

• Loss of water rights through waste or abandonment

• Adverse relationships with other water users and the public

• Drainage and erosion control problems 

• Ill-timed water deliveries to farm fields 

• De-watered streams and wetlands 

Organization of this Guidebook 

This Guidebook is divided into four main sections. 

Section One is this introductory section of the Guidebook. 

Section Two describes a step-by-step planning process that will

enable you to identify the most effective water management

improvements to make first. 

Section Three is a catalog containing brief descriptions of a

range of common agricultural water management measures. It

contains questions and checklists to help you decide which

measures might best help you achieve your goals. 

Section Four is a brief guide to preparing a water management

plan document for your Board of Directors, operations staff and

customers, and for others. It contains a suggested outline for

the document and provides examples of how different types of

information might be presented. 
Section One

8

At the back of the Guidebook, you will find a glossary of terms

and lists of references for further information and assistance. 

In order to help you better understand the concepts and methods

presented in this Guidebook, we have created a "story" about a

hypothetical irrigation district. This story, which appears in a

series of boxes such as the one below, describes how the district

goes about developing a water management plan. The resulting

plan is shown as an example in Section Four. 

Springfield Irrigation District is a small irrigation district in the West established in the early

1900s. It diverts below Spring Mountain Reservoir on the South Fork, a stream that peaks during

spring runoff. For irrigation, the district uses its natural flow water rights in the early season and

takes storage water in the late season. The climate and soils are such that Springfield's farmers

grow mostly alfalfa, grass hay, and corn. For the most part, they use flood and contour ditch

irrigation methods. 

Every farmer in the district pays assessments based on the number of acres he or she owns. The

district uses these assessments to fund operations and capital improvements, but for the past

several years, the assessments have gone almost entirely to repairing the same section of the main

canal. A growing number of farmers in the district are complaining that their annual assessments

aren't being fairly applied to improving services. One of these farmers, Sid, is on the district's

Board of Directors. 

Another growing problem is the district's relationship with the local community. A recent Springfield

Herald headline read, "District Draws Reservoir Down, Marina Left High and Dry." Though the

district has been operating the same way for decades, it is suddenly facing more and more criticism

from the public. 

This year, to address these and other district problems, Springfield's district manager, Ron, has

decided to propose that the district develop a water management plan. He intends to sell his idea of

a water management plan to the Board of Directors by pointing out that, not only will they finally

address the farmers' complaints, they will avoid mistakes made in the past when they took too

narrow a view, they'll improve their image with the public and they'll be a step ahead of other

districts in the basin when it comes time to seek project financing and renegotiate water supply

contracts.
The Planning Process

9

SECTION TWO – THE PLANNING PROCESS

This section of the Guidebook will introduce you to the planning process. It will:

L Outline a systematic but flexible planning process

L Help you identify water management issues and set appropriate goals

L Help you evaluate potential ways to achieve goals and resolve issues

L Help you decide what water management improvements or activities should

become part of your action plan
Section Two

10

OVERVIEW

Every-day life is an ongoing process of identifying issues,

setting goals, and completing tasks to accomplish a desired

outcome. The planning process is just a logical sequence of

decision-making steps or activities that can be followed to

achieve some desired outcome. Steps in the process include:

1. Gathering information

2. Identifying and prioritizing issues

3. Setting goals and objectives

4. Identifying candidate measures capable of achieving the

goals

5. Evaluating the candidate measures

6. Defining a plan of action

7. Implementing the plan of action

8. Monitoring implementation progress

9. Evaluating progress and updating the plan

There is nothing magical or complicated about this sequence of

activities. If you think about it a little bit, you will realize that

you use this thought process for almost every decision you

make. In the context of water management, it is simply used as

a framework to ensure a systematic and thorough decisionmaking process.

The nine planning steps described above are shown in a

sequential, step-by-step order. However, the planning process

often requires going back and forth between steps. For

example, it is very common to determine, in the course of

evaluating options, that further information gathering is needed.

It is this back-and-forth approach that makes planning a

process, as shown in Figure 1, rather than a product. The

product (in this case a water management plan) should be

viewed as a “snapshot” of an ongoing process, taken at a

specific point in time for the purpose of implementing particular

management measures.

Water management planning should be viewed as an ongoing

activity and not as a one-time effort. Situations change, new

technologies arise, and issues may be seen in a new light. As a

result, plans become outdated. Water management planning

must become a routine part of district management to be

effective in the long run.

Each of the nine planning steps shown in Figure 1 are discussed

in detail in this section. Hopefully, by the time you have read

through the section, you will have a good understanding of the
The Planning Process

11

Figure 1: The Planning Process

planning process and how it could be applied to your situation. 

Table 1 is provided to help clarify the process. It suggests

typical tasks to be performed in each step. It also gives some

suggestions concerning who in the organization could be

responsible for completing the tasks.
Section Two

12

Step Activity Tasks Responsible Party(s)

1 Gathering data 1. Collect information on the general description

and setting of the district2. Collect information on water rights and waterresources3. Develop a water budget4. Identify legal, institutional, and environmentalconstraints and requirements5. Define or describe the current watermanagement program

Plan preparer1 with input from district staff andmanagement; Reclamation; other federal, state, orlocal water agencies; local stakeholders

2 Identifying and prioritizing issues 1. Identify issues

 A. Study available information (see Step 1above) B. Conduct on-site tours C. Interview individual stakeholders D. Conduct brainstorming sessions withstakeholders2. Prioritize issues

1. Plan preparer with input from district staff andmanagement; Reclamation; other federal, state, orlocal water agencies; local stakeholders2. District governing board and management withinput from plan preparer, district staff, and localstakeholders

3 Setting Goals Set one or more concise, quantifiable, and

measurable goals for each issue determined to berelevant (see Step 2, Task 2 above)

District governing board and management withinput from plan preparer, district staff, and localstakeholders

1The plan preparer might be a district employee, a consultant hired by the district, or a Reclamation or another agency’s technical specialist providing assistance.

Table 1: The Process for Preparing and Implementing

Water Management (Conservation) Plans
The Planning Process

13

Step Activity Tasks Responsible Party(s)

4 Identifying candidate water management

measures and activities

List all water management measures or activitiesthat might contribute to the accomplishment ofeach goal

Plan preparer with input from district staff andmanagement; Reclamation; other federal, state, orlocal water agencies, local stakeholders

5 Evaluating candidate measures Evaluate and compare the candidate measures

identified in Step 4 considering the followingfactors:• Benefits provided by each measure• Cost of implementing each measure• Acceptability of each measure to stakeholders• Ease of implementing each measure• Legal or institutional constraints associated witheach measure• Environmental impacts associated with eachmeasure

Plan preparer with input from district staff andmanagement; Reclamation; other federal, state, orlocal water agencies; local stakeholders

6 Developing water management program 1. Select measures and activities to be included

in the water management program2. Establish a schedule for implementing eachindividual measure3. Determine resources (staff time, money,facilities, and equipment) to be committed toimplementing each individual measure4. Identify monitoring parameters and establishmonitoring schedule5. Prepare written water management plandocumenting process followed, informationconsidered, and adopted plan

1-4. District governing board and managementwith input from plan preparer, district staff,technical specialists, and local stakeholders5. Plan preparer with input from other sources asneeded

Table 1: The Process for Preparing and Implementing

Water Management (Conservation) Plans (Cont.)
Section Two

14

Step Activity Tasks Responsible Party(s)

7 Implementing water management program Employ appropriate resources to accomplish the

water management program following theschedule developed above

District governing board, management and staffwith possible assistance from technical specialists

8 Monitoring implementation progress Follow the monitoring schedule developed above

to collect the data to evaluate implementationprogress

District management and staff with possibleassistance from other technical specialists

9 Evaluating progress and updating plan 1. Evaluate progress being made in

implementing the water management program todetermine if goals are being met as planned2. Review the plan annually to refine issues orgoals, add or delete measures, adjust schedule, orrefine budget. The complete plan should beupdated and resubmitted every 5 years

1. District management and staff with possibleassistance from other technical specialists2. District governing board with input from districtmanagement and staff, local stakeholders, and othertechnical specialists

Table 1: The Process for Preparing and Implementing

Water Management (Conservation) Plans (Cont.)
The Planning Process

15

The Importance of Public Involvement

A basic principle of planning is that it cannot effectively be

done in a vacuum. It would be foolhardy to design a new set of

policies, procedures, or requirements and attempt to implement

them without involving the people affected by them. In many

cases, district or ditch company bylaws would prohibit such

actions.

For plans to be credible and effective, it is important to obtain

consensus and support from district boards of directors and

from potentially affected parties. The parties that are most

obviously affected by the water management measures

described in this Guidebook are water users themselves. 

Involving water users in all phases of the planning process is

more likely to produce management plans that address real

issues in practical ways. If they feel the plan is responsive to

their needs and to their input, they will be far more likely to

support it.

But there are other important “publics” that can also make

significant contributions to plan development. Involving local

community leaders, state and federal agency staff, and

representatives of various interest groups in the planning

process is more than the application of the “two heads are better

than one” principle; it also provides a mechanism for obtaining

broader perspectives on the issues and can help head off later

obstacles to plan implementation.

For these reasons, it is very important to consider public

involvement as an integral part of the water management

planning process. The goals of public involvement are:

• To build credibility by establishing an open and

accessible planning and decision-making process

• To identify and understand the diverse concerns and

values of the parties potentially affected by your

decisions

• To develop a consensus among these divergent interests

in support of your water management plan

Some methods to provide public involvement opportunities

include mail questionnaires and information sheets, public

meetings and workshops, focus groups and advisory

committees, and the use of local media. Reclamation has a
Section Two

16

substantial amount of experience in developing public

involvement programs and has produced a Public

Involvement Manual to assist the water resource planner in

this area (USDI, 1980). Additional assistance in developing

a public involvement program can be obtained from the

Water Conservation Coordinator at Reclamation’s Area or

Regional office nearest you.
The Planning Process

17

STEP 1 – INFORMATION GATHERING

Overview

The first step in the planning process includes information

gathering activities. You probably already have quite a bit of

information about your district and its water use, but it may be

incomplete or not organized in a way that is helpful in problemsolving. This step of the planning process is meant to “flesh

out” information gaps and uncertainties. You must have a clear

definition of your circumstances before you can identify and

prioritize issues or set goals.

Input from irrigators and others affected by your district’s water

use will help you identify important issues. When examined

carefully, these issues may turn out to be symptoms of more

basic problems. Therefore, you will want to involve a wide

range of people at the onset of Step 1, perhaps through an

annual shareholder meeting or public meeting.

Checklist of information needs

The first step of the planning process is gathering the

information you need to identify and analyze water management

issues. You also will need some other descriptive information

about the district to include in your water management plan

document so that people who read it have a good understanding

about the district. The checklist below is provided to help you

get started assembling the information you will need. 

Physical Setting

Understanding the local hydrology and climate will help you

identify the factors which affect district water supplies and

irrigation demands. Data that might be useful include:

• Hydrology of source streams, district reservoirs, area

wetlands, and groundwater

• Water quality of sources and return flows

• Climate information such as precipitation and temperature

Sources of hydrologic, climatic, and water quality include
Section Two

18

extension offices, local universities, the National Climatic Data

Center, the USGS, the EPA, the NRCS, Reclamation, and

private data publishers.

Water Rights, Permits, and Contracts

The legal and institutional constraints under which your district

operates will be a factor in your water management plan. 

Therefore, it would be useful to understand:

• Brief history of the district and local area

• Rights or permits held by the district

• Contracts with Reclamation or others

• Instream flow requirements 

• Restrictions on water use

• Endangered Species Act compliance needs

Sources of information include district bylaws, articles of

incorporation, decrees, contracts, and state water legislation. 

Pay particular attention to restrictions on the use of conserved

or salvaged water, transfers within your district or between

districts, and any requirements to preserve return flow patterns.

Lands and Crops

Understanding the agricultural details of your district is key to

developing a sound management plan. Data that should be

collected include:

• Acreage under each crop

• Irrigation methods

• Soil, topography, and drainage

The Crop Production and Water Utilization Data sheets that

districts submit to Reclamation are comprehensive with respect

to areas irrigated and crops grown. You should find

descriptions of terrain, soil types, and soil parameters important

to irrigation operations in Reclamation’s Land Classification

Maps. Your district may have copies of these maps or may

wish to obtain them from Reclamation’s local Area Office. 
The Planning Process

19

Other sources of soils information may be found in NRCS soil

surveys.

District Operations and Operating Policies

Your water management plan may involve modifying existing

operating policies. Sources of this information could include

district bylaws, written policies, district rules and regulations,

and standard practices. You will first need to understand:

• General operations

• Water ordering and delivery procedures

• Water pricing rate structure

• Water shortage allocation policy

• Inter-district agreements and operations

• Staffing and training of operators

Examples include reservoir operations, main canal operations,

timing of use of different sources, groundwater pumping

policies, flood control policies, facilities maintenance, and

hydropower operations. Many operating policies may not be

written down; describing your operations in writing will help

you and others better understand how the district works.

Water Resources Inventory

The infrastructure and water supplies currently in place in your

district will be the most important factors in determining where

water use efficiencies can be improved. Records of flow

amounts will be key to estimating losses and potential savings. 

The types of data you will need include:

• General description of the reservoirs and distribution system

• Diversion capacities and diversion records

• Groundwater pumping capacities and pumping data

• Storage capacities, storage and release records, and

evaporation data

• Delivery records and data, including peak period deliveries
Section Two

20

• Drainage and return flow records

Some districts will have detailed, daily records for diversions,

storage and deliveries for multiple points in the system. Others

will have diversion and delivery records only for main canals

and laterals. Reclamation’s Monthly Water Distribution sheets

will contain monthly data for your district, though the accuracy

and reliability of these data should be verified. You may also

have additional records in the form of ditch rider notebooks,

water ordering cards, etc. Information from drought years will

be particularly useful.

Other Water Uses

There may be opportunities and constraints presented to your

district by non-agricultural water uses. Your district may

provide water supplies for municipal, domestic, or industrial

uses; you will want to quantify those water uses as much as

possible. Some other water uses include:

• Recreational and environmental uses

• Special needs or operations (e.g., sediment flushing)

Existing Water Management and Conservation Programs

You will want to understand what management measures or

programs have already been implemented in your district. 

These could range from sprinkler installation to education

programs to variable rate pricing. Understanding the cost and

impacts of each measure will help you make informed decisions

about future measures. Lessons from programs that have not

succeeded are as valuable as those from programs that have

succeeded.
The Planning Process

21

STEP 2 – IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING ISSUES

Overview

Issues are the reasons or justifications (why) for performing

actions. Planners often call issues by a variety of names. They

may call them problems, needs, or opportunities. Issues may

result from specific requirements or reflect stakeholder wants. 

Water management planning issues are often thought to relate

only to water supply issues. However, issues can involve all

aspects of water management and use. Areas to be considered

should include:

• Administration

• Crop production

• Customer service

• Drainage

• Equipment

• Facilities availability and capabilities

• Finances

• Information management

• Legal, institutional, or environmental requirements

• Operation and maintenance

• Personnel

• Policy

• Soil erosion

• Water quality

• Water supply or availability

• Water use

Identifying Issues

There are a variety of ways to learn about water management

issues in your district. Probably the most common way is dayto-day observation and experience. District management and

staff members often observe operational issues directly. Water

users may complain of difficulties with deliveries. Other

persons in the community may bring drainage problems to your

attention. Holding informal “brainstorming sessions” with

district staff, water users, partners, and stakeholders might help

to increase information exchange.

Several water management practices are fundamental to any

good water management program. These “fundamental”
Section Two

22

measures or practices include:

• Measuring and billing for water delivered

• Eliminating pricing disincentives

• Adopting a water education program

• Designating a water management coordinator

If any of these fundamental measures are lacking in current

water management programs, they should be included along

with other issues that are identified.

Ron discusses his planning ideas with the district's Board. The Board is interested in the concept but

wants to find out how much support there might be for it in the district. Together they decide that

they need a meeting with the farmers to introduce the idea of a water management plan and to

identify key district problems. Sid suggests that they expand the district meeting to include the

public. 

Ron wants this public meeting to be an opportunity for the farmers and the local community to

thoroughly vent their concerns and ideas. He makes a brief presentation to the audience and then

opens it up for questions and comments. He asks one of the participants to record the comments and

suggestions on sheets of butcher paper displayed for everyone to see.

Some of the more frequent comments are: 

• There isn't enough canal capacity to get water to the lower end of the district. 

• There isn't enough late-season water. 

• We'd like to grow more corn but we need to get the water in a more timely basis. 

• There are big seepage losses in portions of the canal. 

• The seepage losses have supported wetlands for almost 100 years. 

• A lot of water is lost when farmers shut off their laterals and the canal spills. 

• Let's look at what other districts are doing before launching into a big program. 

• Efficient irrigators are paying a lot more per acre-foot of water than others are. 

• Boaters and fishermen at Spring Mountain Reservoir are pushing for higher, late-season lake

levels. 

• The state wants to improve the springtime streamflows in the section of the South Fork just

below Springfield's headgate. 

• We don't have a lot of money to spend. 

• Downstream municipal users are concerned about the quality of drainage and return flow water. 

After a couple of hours of collecting farmers' ideas, Ron suggests that a handful of farmers

volunteer to form an advisory committee. He gets three volunteers, Sid, Iris and Wendell. 
The Planning Process

23

Figure 2: Typical Components of a Water Budget

Another important way to learn about water management issues

is to analyze data. For example, by comparing records of gross

diversions with records of farm deliveries you can estimate the

amount of water lost in main canals and laterals. This type of

quantitative analysis can provide quite specific information

about problem areas, provided it is based on accurate data. One

very useful method of analysis is the water budget, which is

described in more detail below. You also might be able to

obtain additional useful data from other agencies (for example,

a county extension agent) or by installing new measuring

devices.

Water Budget Concept

The water budget is a convenient tool for analyzing water

management issues, provided that you have adequate and

reliable data. It is also a useful way to organize quantitative

information you have collected.

The water budget concept, simply stated, is that the sum of

system inflows has to equal the sum of system outflows. 

Inflows consist of all the sources of water supply to the district. 

Outflows consist of all the ways that water is removed from the

district. The various components of inflow and outflow that are

usually present in a district water budget are shown in Figure 2.
Section Two

24

Figure 3: Ideal Water Measurement System

By comparing inflows and outflows in a water budget, it is

possible to identify unaccounted-for losses. For example, if the

diversion into a canal and farm turnouts from the canal are all

measured, the difference between the diversion and the sum of

the deliveries to turnouts would be the gross loss from the canal. 

This gross loss is the net result of seepage, evaporation,

precipitation, and the interception of surface runoff and

groundwater flow. If any of these later quantities (such as

precipitation, evaporation, and interception) can be accurately

measured or estimated, then the remaining difference provides

an estimate of the other quantities such as seepage).

However, all this is possible only if the records or estimates for

all the accounted-for inflows and outflows are accurate and

reliable. If any of those records or estimates are unreliable or

inaccurate, the losses calculated from the water budget will also

be unreliable or inaccurate. Thus, it is very important that the

data used in water budget analysis be verified. Figure 3

illustrates the extent of flow measurement that is desirable for

development of a good district water budget.
The Planning Process

25

The water budget approach is very flexible and can be applied

at different scales. For example, it can encompass the entire

district or focus on a specific lateral. By focusing on smaller

areas, it is sometimes possible to identify the specific locations

of problems such as ditch seepage.

The water budget can also be prepared on an annual basis or a

daily basis. A shorter time step sometimes help identify

scheduling problems. Table 2 depicts a water budget set up to

look at an entire district on a monthly basis for an average year. 

It might be helpful to prepare such a water budget for a wet year

and for a dry year to see how losses change with hydrologic

conditions. By analyzing several years, your confidence in the

results of the analysis will be increased.

The primary limitation on what scales can be used in the water

budgets is the availability of accurate flow measurements. You

should not be tempted to stretch the application of the water

budget methodology beyond what you have the data to support. 

If you are unable to construct a good water budget for the

district, you should probably consider the improvement of water

measurement systems to be a top priority issue for your water

management plan.

The Crop ET value in Table 2 can be calculated from crop

acreages and crop consumptive use estimates. Consumptive use

estimates are often available from Reclamation or other state or

local agricultural agencies. Most districts do not collect

seepage and evaporation data. These values may be derived

from the water budget if the other data in the table are available.

One of the most valuable aspects of the water budget is that it

provides a means to calculate efficiencies. Estimating

efficiencies at different levels will help you identify where

improvements are needed the most:

District-Wide Efficiency = Crop ET ÷ Total Inflows

Delivery Efficiency = Total Farm Deliveries ÷ Total Inflows

On-farm Efficiency = Crop ET ÷ Total Farm Deliveries

Monthly calculations of efficiencies will help you determine

how well district diversions and deliveries match crop

requirements.
Section Two

26

INFLOWS OUTFLOWS

Month

Direct

Diversion

Storage

Release

Ground

Water

Pumping Precipitation

Total

Inflows

Operational

Spills Drainage

Evap.

&

Seepage

Crop

ET

Total

Outflow

Jan 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 0 720 480 0 1,200

Feb 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 0 900 600 0 1,500

Mar 0 0 0 2,250 2,250 0 1,350 900 0 2,250

Apr 3,581 0 0 2,700 6,281 105. 527 1,053 3,648 6,281

May 8,723 0 0 2,550 11,273 1,491 1,491 1,988 6,302 11,273

Jun 9,318 0 0 ,750 10,068 705 1,411 1,411 6,541 10,068

July 9,692 4,395 550 450 15,024 1,053 2,107 2,107 9,757 15,024

Aug 5,777 7,770 400 300 14,247 1,208 2,416 2,416 8,207 14,247

Sep 2,889 4,101 0 600 7,589 611 1,221 1,221 4,536 7,589

Oct 654 978 0 750 2,382 195 389 389 1,409 2,382

Nov 0 0 0 750 750 0 450 300 0 750

Dec 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 0 630 420 0 1,050

Total 40,571 17,244 950 14,850 73,614 6,316 13,612 13,285 40,400 73,614

Table 2: Example Monthly Water Budget
The Planning Process

27

Ron meets with the advisory committee to go over the list of issues identified at the

district-wide meeting. It seems like there is some confusion about when and how much

water is actually getting to the farmers, and when and how much water is lost. Ron has

been to a few Reclamation workshops on water management and has an idea about doing a

water budget for the district to help them pin it down better. They don't have much data

but they do have several years of annual Crop Production and Water Utilization Sheets that

they've submitted to Reclamation. These sheets have monthly estimates of how much

water was diverted by the district, how much was lost in conveyance, how much was spilled

and how much was delivered to farms. 

The only flows that are measured regularly are those at the main canal diversion from the

South Fork. Flows into some of the farm turnouts can be estimated based on the gate

opening, but measurements aren't taken consistently. No measurements of spills or

transportation losses are made anywhere in the district. To fill out the Water Utilization

Sheets, the district has been using ditch riders' estimates of deliveries. Not surprisingly,

Ron and the advisory committee are somewhat skeptical about using the loss and farm

delivery data in the Water Utilization sheets. 

Iris proposes that they take a slightly different approach to the water budget, "What if

we compare the monthly canal diversion amounts with crop irrigation requirements? At least

we have confidence in the diversion data, and I've heard that crop requirement estimates

are available from the county extension agent. If we multiply the requirements by the

number of acres under each crop type we'll get an estimate of the district-wide

requirement." 

This water budget analysis method shows that the difference between the monthly canal

diversion and the monthly irrigation requirements is surprisingly large. Wendell points out

that the district diverts much more in the early season than is necessary for the crops. 

"No wonder the reservoir is so low at the end of the season, our natural flow diversions are

competing with its storage right," he says. 

Sid says, "I think we take a lot of water early because folks are worried that our water

rights will be in jeopardy if we don't take as much as we can, when we can." 

"Hmm, I don't know," wonders Ron, "At the most, we only need to take the decreed amount

once in the season to protect our right. Do we divert so much early on because we need

that much water to bring soil moisture levels up? Where is that water going? Boy, I wish we

had better data." 
Section Two

28

Checklist of Typical Issue Areas

A “checklist” is provided below to help you start thinking about

where there might be specific issues or opportunities to improve

water management in your district. This checklist is organized

into areas that are common to irrigation organizations. It may

be that your district or ditch company has unique water

management issues that could be added to this list.

Adequacy of Data

Good information is fundamental to making good decisions. 

Informed decisions about water management are based on good

water measurement and accounting. Without accurate and

reliable information about when, where, and how much water is

used, it is difficult to correctly assess the locations and

magnitudes of issues. These assessments, in turn, are key to

deciding how to allocate scarce district resources.

? Do you make regular measurements of flows into all

laterals? To your turnouts?

? Are all measuring devices in good operating condition?

Checked regularly?

? Are you able to base billing to customers on

measurement of water they actually use?

? Do you think you could use more or improved water

measurement?

? Do you have specific ideas about where and how such

measurements should be taken?

Adequacy of Supply

The adequacy of the district water supply should be considered

at several levels. In some situations it will be clear that water

demand chronically exceeds available supply. However, it is

more common that supply is adequate on the average, but there

are shortages in dry years, in the late season, or in certain

locations.
The Planning Process

29

? Do you regularly have difficulties meeting overall

district water demands?

? Are there certain areas of the district that are always a

problem?

? Do you regularly have late season shortages?

? Have you ever compared actual diversions and deliveries

to estimated crop requirements?

? Have you estimated your overall system conveyance

losses?

Condition of Facilities

In the planning process, it is essential to evaluate the overall

condition of facilities in order to identify potential issues. The

facilities that should be considered include the operation and

maintenance equipment, the conveyance and distribution

system, and the on-farm delivery systems.

? Are frequent equipment breakdowns or lack of proper

equipment hampering timely operation and maintenance

activities?

? Does the district distribution system experience chronic

canal breaks or excessive canal seepage?

? Are water control devices (check structures, headgates,

turnouts, etc.) in good repair and providing adequate

water control?

? Are there specific project features that require an

abnormal amount of maintenance?

? Are there adequate measuring devices to provide proper

control of flows?

? Do some farmers waste excessive amounts of water

because their on-farm delivery systems are outmoded, in

a poor state of repair, or not appropriate for the crop

being grown?
Section Two

30

Scheduling of Deliveries

Ideally, water is delivered only when it is needed. We are all

accustomed to this concept and apply it regularly when we turn

on the tap at the kitchen sink. Irrigation water supply systems

are usually not pressurized like domestic systems, so matching

deliveries and needs is a much more complicated proposition. 

When deliveries do not match needs, there is potential for

wasted water or unmet demand.

? Do you run water continuously in canals and laterals?

? Do irrigators in your district have access to monitoring

and scheduling services telling them when they need to

irrigate?

? Do you use a rigid-schedule (rotation) or advanced

ordering (demand) system for water deliveries.

? How far in advance do users need to place their orders?

Can you fill orders on a shorter notice?

? Do you have the ability to quickly check or shut down

canals and laterals to avoid spills?

Efficiency of Application

Irrigation water delivered to the farm must ultimately be

delivered to the crop root zone. The challenge in water

application is to deliver water to the root zone efficiently and

uniformly over the entire field, without putting too much in

some places and not enough in others. Application efficiency

and uniformity are affected by many things, but most

prominently by field characteristics, water application methods,

and water management skill of the irrigator. Evidence of poor

application efficiency included dry patches or ponding on fields,

excessive tailwater runoff, and irregular crop stress or plant

vigor.

? Are farmers receiving water at the time and in the

amount required by the crops? Too often or not often

enough? Too much or too little?

? Are the farm fields in your district relatively flat or is

the land sloping or hilly? Are sprinklers common in the

hilly areas?
The Planning Process

31

? Do soil types differ greatly from field to field? Within

fields?

? Is there a lot of variability in the effectiveness of on-farm

water use?

? Does the district provide demonstration projects or

training workshops for irrigators?

? Does the district have programs to make improved water

application equipment or technologies more accessible to

irrigators?

Control of Drainage and Tailwater

Tailwater is produced when irrigation water is applied to fields

at rates and in amounts greater than can be infiltrated into the

soil profile. Drainage may include both tailwater and seepage

water from deep percolation through farm fields. This deep

percolation occurs when more water is infiltrated than can be

retained in the crop root zone. Sometimes excess water must be

applied to leach salts from the soil, but the presence of

significant amounts of drainage and tailwater is often viewed as

evidence of over-application of irrigation water.

? Has you district constructed drains to convey tailwater

and seepage away from irrigated fields?

? Do you monitor flows in these drains or at other points

on local streams to assess the quantities of tailwater and

drainage return flow being produced?

? Do you collect tailwater and drainage flows in ponds?

? Do you monitor the water quality in drains and ponds?

? If tailwater is collected, is it feasible to pump tailwater

back into your district’s distribution system?
Section Two

32

Water Transfer Needs and Opportunities

Water transfer arrangements can take many forms. They may

be formal or informal, temporary or permanent, within the

district or with outside users. The basic idea behind all of them,

however, is to move water from users having more than they

need to users having less than they need.

? Is there a method within your district for irrigators to

transfer their water shares or allocations to other

irrigators?

? Can transfers be made to non-irrigation uses within the

district?

? Have non-irrigation or non-district water users inquired

about the district’s ability to supply them with water?

? Are there local water needs that could be met by the

district if transfers were allowed?

? Is there transfer within the district, or within or out of

the basin?

? Are there federal laws, state laws, contract provisions, or

policies that affect this transfer?

Environmental considerations

The development of western irrigated agriculture has had

impacts on the environment and ecosystems of the region. 

Construction and operation of water storage and diversion

projects, and their management to varying degrees, have

generally modified and depleted natural flow regimes, created

wetlands in areas where they did not exist naturally, and

degraded water quality by adding sediments, salts, and chemical

residues from fertilizers and pesticides.

? Are there wetlands or critical habitats affected by water

use in your district?

? Are there endangered species in source or receiving

streams?

? Are drainage waters from your district highly saline?
The Planning Process

33

Issue Example

Most of a district’s check structures, gates, turnouts and drops are 70

years old or older. Due to the age of these structures, approximately 75

percent of the district’s annual budget and labor resources are required to

rehabilitate the aging structures. As a result, the district’s expenses are

exceeding income and the reserve fund is nearly depleted. 

Issue: District expenses exceed income resulting in a depleted reserve.

? What constraints do these issues impose on your

operations?

? How do your operations affect these environmental

values?

? Are there ways district operations could be modified to

improve conditions?

Public Concerns

Irrigated agriculture is undergoing more and more scrutiny by

municipalities, industry, environmental groups, and the general

public. This interest may pose both constraints and

opportunities for irrigation districts.

? Has your district been approached as a potential source

of water?

? Is your district facing new environmental regulations?

? Is your water storage facility also a recreational facility?

? Is your water storage facility subject to relicensing?

? Are there downstream water users who depend on your

district’s return flows?

? Are there upstream water users whose activities affect

the amount and quality of your water source?
Section Two

34

Setting Priorities

Chances are you will identify several, probably many, water

management issues. There may be more things that you want to

do than you have the resources to accomplish. If this is the

case, you will have to decide which issues are the most

important.

There are a variety of ways to set priorities among competing

issues. Priorities might emphasize issues that are perceived to

be important to the greatest number of people. Priorities might

emphasize issues that have the least cost or the greatest

financial return. Priorities might emphasize issues that enhance

the physical performance of your supply system. Priorities

might emphasize issues that are most in harmony with existing

rules and regulations and with neighboring water management

agencies. Priorities might emphasize issues that involve

improvements to water quality or habitat.

One way to assess the relative importance of issues is to hold

workshops or discussion groups with staff, water users, and

stakeholders. After describing the water management issues

you have identified, you can ask for a “straw vote.” You might

list all the possible issues on large sheets of paper, hang them on

the wall, and ask participants to “vote” on the five most

important ones.

Your Board of Directors will obviously be an important source

of input for assigning priorities to the issues to be addressed in

your water management plan. The Board will likely have the

final input on the priority of issues.

Given the importance of good information to good decisionmaking, it is probably safe to say that having good water

measurement and accounting should be a top priority in every

district. Without good water measurement it is difficult to

quantify and evaluate water management issues. It is also

impossible to base accounting or pricing on actual water

delivery unless those deliveries are measured. Accordingly,

every district should consider issues revolving around improved

water measurement and accounting.

The process of prioritizing the issues will identify critical issues

that should be given immediate attention. The lower priority

issues will require less immediate attention and some may be of

so low a priority that no attention is required. Ultimately,

though, the number of issues that must be addressed in the

remainder of the planning process could be significantly

reduced. A few issues may have no apparent resolution other
The Planning Process

35

than adapting to the existing situation. Some of the issues

should justify ongoing activities that are part of the current

water management program. Resolution of other issues will

require new activities. 

Ron, Sid, Iris, and Wendell now have a pretty good idea that poor scheduling is the primary

cause of at least some of the district issues. After considerable discussion, they

determine that issues like seepage losses and insufficient deliveries to the lower end of the

district are ultimately caused by inefficiencies in the system. The question now is how to

proceed. 

"Well, what are we trying to do here?" asks Ron, "I guess we should figure out what issues

are important for the district to resolve. Once we know what issues are important, we can

set goals to resolve the issues and then select some measures to accomplish the goals." 

Ron, Sid, Iris, and Wendell reviewed the information they had collected, as well as the input

from the public meeting. After considerable discussion, they identified nine major issues,

as well as several more secondary issues. (See Example Plan, Table 7.) They observed that

farm deliveries and operational spills are not measured. As a result, farmers cannot match

deliveries to crop requirements; the water budget contains significant inaccuracies; and the

district cannot bill for water used.

Ron commented that the lack of water measurement is a major impediment to good overall

water management by the district. Sid agreed and said that the lack of measurement

causes similar problems for the farmers. They concluded that the lack of adequate water

measurement was the top issue for the district.

Ron noted, “Excessive early-season diversions accompanied by late-season shortages is

another issue that was frequently noted. Many of the other problems and issues people

raised are related to this issue.” 

“It looks like we could address several related issues if we could only bring the early-season

diversions in line with actual crop needs,” suggested Wendell. “Efficiencies need to improve

as part of the process.”

“Excessive early-season diversions accompanied by late-season shortages appears to be our

number two issue,” said Iris.

“Our farmers will need to carry much of the load in improving efficiencies if we are going to

resolve the second issue. At present, there are no incentives. In fact, water costs are

inequitable between the efficient and inefficient water users,” explained Sid.

The group agreed that the third issue to be addressed involved charging for actual water

used to create incentives for efficient water use.
Section Two

36

“We seem to have considerable problems with farmers shutting off their laterals and then

we get canal spills. This seems to be a problem for both ditchriders and other users,”

noted Iris, who suggested that this be the next issue to consider. The group agreed.

“Closely associated with this is the overall issue of insufficient deliveries at the lower end

of the district,” remarked Ron. “We need to address this issue as well.”

“I am concerned about recreation at the reservoir, in-stream flows, and concerns about

water quality for downstream M&I users,” said Sid. “Don’t we have a role in the basin on

environmental issues?”

“Yeah, we shouldn’t assume that we can just operate in isolation any more. Or worse yet,

wait until the public forces us to take some action,” agreed Ron.

“I think if we address the Number 2 issue, the recreation issue will resolve itself. I do

think that we need to take a leadership role in addressing the in-stream flow issue, though,”

commented Sid. “If we can make some of the improvements needed to resolve our other

issues, it will make a big difference in the quality of water reaching the downstream users. 

But, we still need to be aware of the issue and monitor what is happening.”

“We have all been avoiding the issue of excess canal seepage,” observed Ron. “Eliminating

canal seepage could provide extra water but we probably don’t need extra water as much as

we need to improve our other efficiencies. Besides, canal lining is costly and could involve a

complex and lengthy process to get the necessary approvals, especially considering that our

wetlands provide migratory bird habitat. I suggest we save this issue for future

consideration.”

“Yeah, but we still need to remember that our wetlands could be possible constraints for

our other activities,” noted Wendell.
The Planning Process

37

STEP 3 - SETTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

What are Goals?

Goals and objectives describe what needs to be accomplished

and when it needs to be done in order to resolve a specific issue. 

Goals should be set for each issue determined to be relevant to

the district developing the water management program. Goals

should be concise, quantifiable, and measurable. Good goals

are also “smart.” That is: Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Realistic, and Time-based. These goals will help you decide

which water management measures make the most sense to

implement. They will become the “yardsticks’ by which you

measure the success of your efforts.

Goal Setting

In addition to addressing specific issues as described above,

some other areas where you should consider developing specific

planning goals include the following:

• Providing leadership in solving regional water problems

• Improving coordination with neighboring water supply

entities

• Enhancing the value of the water resource within and

outside the district

There are some basic principles to follow when it come to

defining the goal statements that will drive your water

management planning effort. These principles are derived from

strategies for businesses but they are applicable to any directed

activity. The principles are that goals should be:

Relevant

Goal statements need to address actual issues faced by the

district. The objective of the planning process is to identify and

take appropriate actions to address potential water management

issues. Hopefully, the information-gathering and issuedefinition activities of Step 1 and Step 2 will have illustrated for

you where some water management issues exist. Your goals
Section Two

38

should build on these findings.

Consistent With Values

District goals will be more readily achieved if they are

consistent with the values of district directors, staff, and

irrigators. Their values are the basis of their motivation to

support your management efforts.

Specific and Clearly Stated

Goals need to be expressed in clear terms and directed at

specific issues. This principle is necessary in order to choose

between management options and to gauge your progress. 

Vaguely stated goals will leave people uncertain about what

they should do. If possible, goals should be stated in

quantitative terms.

Written Down

It is essential to write down goal statements in order to

consistently communicate them to others. It also makes a

commitment that is not present when you just think about them. 

Use simple, concise, common language when writing goal

statements.

Minimal in Number

Having too many goals will diffuse the resources your district

can direct toward achieving any one of them. This reflects the

importance of carefully prioritizing issues and selecting only the

number that can be addressed with available resources. 

However, at least one goal should be set for addressing each of

the issues of concern.

Challenging but Realistic

Motivated people generally respond well to challenges, but

unrealistic goals will cause everyone involved to become

frustrated and disillusioned. Goal statements should reflect the

practical ability of your district to direct money and staff

resources at the issue to be resolved.
The Planning Process

39

Visualized

Painting mental pictures of your goals is a very powerful

technique. It helps you see them as more realistic and

achievable. To the degree possible, you should try to share your

vision with others on whom you will rely for help.

Long-Term

Many water management improvements take time to develop

and will not be realized immediately. Attitudes change slowly

and voluntary adoption of new practices occurs incrementally. 

The district must maintain a leadership role over the long-haul

to allow its efforts to bear fruit.

Achievement-oriented

If people do not see results from their efforts, they eventually

lose interest. When developing goal statements, try to think of

ways in which progress toward those goals might be recognized

and publicized. This is especially important for goals that will

take a long time to achieve.

Goal Statements

Here are a few goal statements that reflect the principles stated

above:

“Have adequate water measurement data available by the end

of year 2004 to support future studies of district water use and

management.”

“Reduce seepage loses from system laterals to less than 5

percent of gross diversions by the year 2006.”

“Develop sufficient surplus supply capacity to provide 2,000

acre-feet of water annually for local industrial needs.”

“Within 7 years, increase district revenues by $100,000 per

year to support a revolving loan fund for on-farm water

management improvements.”

“Institute a 2-day advance water ordering system by the

year2010.”

A word of caution at this point. The tendency in setting goals is
Section Two

40

Goal Example

Issue: District expenses exceed income, resulting in a depleted reserve

fund. (See Issue Example)

Goal: Increase income and/or reduce expenses so that the reserve fund

could be restored within 5 years.

to include specific measures as part of the goal statement. The

goal statement should only describe what is to happen and when

it is to take place. How it will happen will be determined in the

next several steps of the planning process.
The Planning Process

41

Ron, Sid, Wendell, and Iris now understand the issues confronting the district. Their next

task is to set goals to resolve the issues they have identified.

Sid thinks that charging for water use should be a goal. He argues that this will solve a lot

of the equity problems and possibly provide funds for upgrading the district's delivery

system. 

"That's really a method, not a goal," reasons Wendell. "We should set goals based upon the

issues we have identified and then look at methods for achieving them." 

Ron suggests that a goal might be to begin measuring all farm deliveries and operational

spills greater than 0.25 acre-feet within the next 3 years. This would address issue No. 1. 

The group concurred.

The group next focused its attention on the second issue, excessive early-season diversions

and late-season shortages. After considerable discussion, they agreed that beginning with

the next irrigation season, their goal would be to match diversions to actual crop

requirements so that unneeded natural flows could be stored in the reservoir.

Sid smiled when the group considered the third issue. The group agreed that to resolve

this issue, their goal would be to include a charge for water use as a component of all water

bills. This would become effective in about 3 years when all measuring devices are

installed.

To address the issue of canal spills occurring when farmers shut off their laterals, the

group established a goal that no delivery flows would be changed without advance approval

of the district.

The group discussed the ramifications of insufficient deliveries to the lower end of the

district. They concluded that they did not have sufficient information to determine the

causes of the problem. Their goal is to have a plan completed within 1 year for equitably

distributing water between the upper and lower ends of the district.

Resolution of the in-stream flow issue was more troublesome to the group. They wrestled

with the uncertainties associated with reducing early-season diversions. Finally, they

agreed upon a goal to provide 20 percent of the anticipated reduction in early-season

diversions as in-stream flow below the district’s diversion.

The group could not identify a specific goal to address the concerns of downstream M&I

users for the quality of drainage and return flows. They anticipate that various components

of the plan will make some improvement upon downstream water quality. Ron suggested that

they periodically monitor the water quality to see what effect their program would have. 

They can then readdress this issue when they have a better understanding of the

circumstances, if it is still an issue. (These goals are summarized in the Example Plan,

Table 8.)
Section Two

42

STEP 4 – IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE MEASURES CAPABLE OF

ACHIEVING SPECIFIC GOALS

Measures, activities, and tasks are all commonly used names for

actions that determine how a goal will be achieved. Candidate

measures applicable to a water management program are

numerous. However, only a few measures might have the

capacity to resolve a specific issue. 

At this point in the planning process, all that you are required to

do is to select all those measures that look like they will help in

achieving your goals. More than one measure might be

required to completely achieve a goal. Likewise, a single

measure might have enough sufficiently-broad impacts that it

can help achieve several goals.

The main focus in defining candidate water management

measures for consideration should be the goals you defined in

Step 3. If your goal statements are specific enough, they will

almost “suggest” certain types of measures. Brainstorming in

workshops and focus groups of staff members or irrigators is

also a good way to generate ideas about potential water

management improvements. Thinking of the possibilities is a

very creative process. But you should always come back to

your goal statements as the guiding principles. 

In order to help you get the creative juices flowing, Section

Three of this Guidebook contains descriptions and discussions

of a variety of water management measures (there are many

other candidate measures). The general areas covered in these

descriptions include:

• Improvements to water measurement and accounting

• Changes in water pricing and billing methods

• Education and training programs

• Operational facility improvements to reduce water losses

• Improvements to water delivery scheduling

• Incentives for improving on-farm water management

• Development of contingency plans for shortage periods

• Ways to facilitate water transfers
The Planning Process

43

Candidate Measure Example

Issue: District expenses exceed income, resulting in a depleted reserve

fund. (See Issue Example)

Goal: Increase income and/or reduce expenses so the reserve fund could

be restored within 5 years. (See Goal Example)

Part of the goal is to increase income. Several candidate measures

have the potential to increase income. These could include:

• Raise water rates or other assessments

• Levy or increase special taxes

• Charge for services that are now provided without cost

• Sell unused water to another organization

In this case, a leak detection program might have some benefit to the

district, but it probably would not be considered an income-generating

measure.

You will probably want to refer to these descriptions and

discussions frequently as you work through this step (Step 4) of

the planning process.
Section Two

44

.

Now that they have established the district's goals for the water management plan, Ron

and the advisory committee met to consider measures that might warrant investigation. 

They used Reclamation's Guidebook for Preparing Agricultural Water Conservation Plans

for ideas on different water management measures. They proceeded systematically

through the list of goals as they identified measures to be considered. (See Example Plan,

Table 9.)

The first goal was easy. It requires the installation of flumes, weirs, or staff gauges where

needed. About 16 to 18 flumes or weirs will be needed each year.

The second goal was not so easy. Ron noted that a policy was needed to require a 2-day

advanced ordering of water.

“The policy will not work if the farmers don’t know when to order water,” complained Sid. 

“We also need some type of irrigation scheduling. I am aware that there is field-by-field

irrigation scheduling where soil moisture is monitored. Other places have successfully

published daily crop consumptive use data and the farmers used it to determine when to

irrigate.”

“We will also need an education program,” noted Iris. “Farmers will need to know why it is

not good to use excessive amounts of water early in the season as well as how to properly

schedule irrigations. They probably need to know about improved irrigation techniques as

well.”

“Well, that’s quite a list of activities to accomplish the second goal. Now, let’s consider our

billing goal,” commented Ron.

"I really like this incentive pricing idea," announced Sid. "We could make a lot of progress

toward improving efficiency if we could get folks to pay for the water they use. Remember,

we decided that inefficiency was one of the basic causes of our problems. Besides, we

might end up with some surplus revenues that we could use to pay for more flumes." 

“Good, first we will have to establish a program for measuring all farm deliveries. We can

start as soon as we get some flumes installed and work out the bugs as we continue

installing flumes.”

“We also need to create a rate structure that will ensure that both fixed and variable

costs are covered. This needs to be tested and ready when we implement the new billing

procedure in 3 years,” replied Iris. “Oh, don’t forget that we also need a computer billing

system ready to go when we start the new billing process.”

“We had better start soon to educate farmers about the new billing system, too,”

suggested Sid.
The Planning Process

45

“Good, I think that is about everything that applies to this goal,” responded Ron.

The rest of the process of identifying measures went quite smoothly. They agreed that

there were two choices for addressing the issue of spills resulting from farmers shutting

off their water. The district could either require the farmers to get advanced approval to

shut off the water or they could require the ditch rider to make all flow changes. They

also agreed that they needed to get some technical help from Reclamation and the NRCS to

help study the causes of the inequitable distribution of water between the upper and lower

ends of the district. Finally, they concluded that the district cannot do anything about the

in-stream flows without some formal agreement with the State and Reclamation.
Section Two

46

STEP 5 – EVALUATING THE CANDIDATE MEASURES

Overview

This phase of the planning activity involves investigating how

well each option or measure might contribute to achieving the

goals you defined in Step 3. Usually this means that you will

need to make rough assessments of costs, water savings or other

benefits, political acceptability, etc., of each of the measures

being considered.

The evaluation process involves going back and forth between

evaluation steps. You may decide, for example, that certain

effects of a candidate measure are unacceptable, but that the

measure could be re-defined to avoid those effects. You would

then go through the evaluation process for the modified

measure. Hopefully, each time you go through this exercise you

are getting more precise and confident in your evaluation.

Later in the planning process (in Step 6) you will select from

the most promising options to define an action plan. The basic

objective of Step 5 is to develop enough information about

candidate water management improvements to support these

later decisions.

Describing the Effects of Candidate Measures

Once you have identified some specific measures you think

could help achieve you water management goals, the next step

is to describe the effects of those measures. A wide variety of

effects should be considered. Some of the more important ones

include: cost to the district and to the irrigators, changes in

water flow and use patterns, and environmental effects. The

discussions of specific measures in Section Three provide you

with some ideas about how to estimate the effects of various

types of water management measures.

Costs

Most water management improvements will have costs of some

type. There may be material costs for equipment or

construction. There may be labor costs for operation and

maintenance. There may be financing costs if money is

borrowed to pay for the improvements. There may be costs for
The Planning Process

47

more detailed studies or contract negotiations.

It is also important to consider who pays these costs. Some

costs may be borne by the district, while some may be passed

through to irrigators. The perspectives of both the district and

irrigators should be considered when evaluating the costs of

water management improvements.

Another important matter to be resolved is how the costs of

improvements will be financed. Financing might be available

from existing capital or maintenance funds. Some

improvements might logically be paid for through user fees. 

Borrowing and levying taxes are other methods of financing

available to some districts.

Each of the measures you are considering should be evaluated

in terms of costs and financing requirements. Detailed cost

estimates and financing strategies are probably not needed for

the early stages of planning, but will likely be required later for

some types of improvements.

Water Flow and Use Patterns

Improvements in water management could change water flow

patterns in the district. These changes may take many forms,

including reduced diversions from streams, reduced seepage

from canals, more variable flows in laterals, less runoff from

farm fields, increased deliveries to farm turnouts, etc. Changing

some of these patterns may be the objective of the

improvements, while changing others will be a side-effect of the

improvements.

It is important to describe how flow patterns will change in the

district as a result of water management improvements. You

should attempt to make this description as detailed and

quantitative as possible. Developing alternative district water

budgets reflecting different potential improvements is a good

way to estimate the amounts of water involved in these changes.

It will be particularly important to estimate changes in water use

patterns that are related to district revenues. For example, if the

district charges irrigators for the amount of water delivered to

them, your evaluation of management measures should estimate

how farm deliveries would be changed.
Section Two

48

Environment

Altering water flow and use patterns may have environmental

effects. These effects are likely to be related to changes in

overall diversions and changes in seepage and return flows. In

general, water management improvements will result in more

efficient water use and will reduce spills and return flows. The

effects of this may vary from district to district. Since it is

common for return flows to support wetlands and other habitats,

these environmental features might be affected by changes in

flow patterns.

There may also be changes in water quality. For example, if

runoff from farm fields is reduced, there may be less sediment

and nutrients in district return flows. Changes in flow patterns,

wetlands, or water quality may also affect particular fish and

wildlife species. Your Reclamation Water Conservation

Coordinator can provide additional assistance in this area.

Legal and Institutional Considerations

The implementation of water management and conservation

measures must be done within the context of state water law

and, for some districts, Reclamation law and contracts. 

Furthermore, some conservation measures may have

environmental implications that require local, state, or federal

permitting or mitigation activities. Water management

measures that have been identified as having potential

application in your district should be reviewed in light of these

legal and institutional considerations before final decisions are

made regarding their implementation. The advice of district

counsel may be helpful in this regard.

Other Benefits and Concerns

In addition to the items of concern listed above, some water

management measures may provide other benefits. Some

measures may reduce certain operating costs incurred by the

district or irrigators or they might improve service to irrigators

or other stakeholders, reduce soil erosion or drainage problems,

or increase crop yields and quality. Some measures could be

very easy to implement while other might require considerable

effort and study before being implemented. Likewise, certain

measures will be readily acceptable to irrigators or other

stakeholders while other measures could be met with

considerable resistance. These measures could require lengthy

educational campaigns to convince irrigators or stakeholders of
The Planning Process

49

their merits. You should note any of these benefits or concerns

in the evaluation process.

Ultimately, Ron and the advisory committee resolve to investigate the candidate measures

they had just identified. They figure they need more data before they can make any final

decisions so they contact Reclamation, NRCS, and county extension staff to help them get

rough ideas about costs and environmental effects. They also plan to contact districts that

have implemented some of the measures to get information about legal issues that might

arise. 

Ron, Wendell, Iris, and Sid have spent some time looking into the measures they identified

as candidates. Wendell collected rough estimates of costs for installing the needed

measuring flumes and weirs. Sid talked to other districts about incentive pricing and read

Reclamation's Incentive Pricing Handbook for Agricultural Water Districts to get an idea

of what would be involved in implementing a water pricing system. Iris collected

information on irrigation scheduling and Ron visited with Reclamation to see what kind of

education programs have been put together by other districts. They also talked informally

to several board members about setting a policy requiring a 2-day advance ordering of

water and about the need for a policy addressing farmers shutting off their water.

One of the interesting pieces of information that came out is that the county extension

agent would be willing to give the district evapotranspiration and effective precipitation

estimates each day if the district could figure out a good way to dispense the information

to its farmers. 

"Hey, maybe Larry would be willing to put it in the ad he runs each day in The Springfield

Herald," exclaims Sid, whose brother-in-law Larry has a farm supply store. "It might get

Larry's ad some more readers." 

"Yeah," jokes Wendell, "maybe he'll take out that 20-year-old picture of himself and put in

something useful.”

"What I've learned is that irrigation scheduling can be really sophisticated or it can be

fairly simple," reports Iris. "We could put in high-tech neutron soil probes, evaporation

pans and computerize it all, or we could use Larry's ET and effective precipitation

information. We could do this really cheaply at first and slowly build more sophistication

into it, if folks think it's working." 

"What I've found is that we could start charging folks for water but we need a good way to

measure how much they use. I had assumed that it would be fairly easy but the experience

of this other district was that the farmers wouldn't accept water rates without credible

measurement," remarks Sid. 
Section Two

50

Ron adds, "Measuring deliveries is a pretty basic requirement for almost all of these

solutions. We're way behind in that department. As far as education goes, I did find we

could put together some demonstration projects that could be moved from farm to farm

and that we might be able to afford." 

Ron and the advisory committee decide to do some more investigation and put together a

presentation of their findings for the Board. 

Displaying and Comparing Your Evaluations

You will need to obtain input from management, staff,

irrigators, your Board of Directors, and others about the

alternative water management measures you are considering. It

will be important to do this before you decide to go ahead with

specific measures in your action plan. In most cases, the Board

of Directors will give final approval to the specific measures to

be included in the plan.

There may be quite a bit of information available about the

alternatives you have evaluated. This can make it difficult to

display the effects of the alternatives in a concise way. One

approach that may be helpful is to use an evaluation matrix. A

simple evaluation matrix format is shown in Figure 4.

To use this simple and familiar display method, first list the

alternatives down the side and the affected categories across the

top. You can make these lists and categories as simple or as

complex as you want in order to get your point across. Then, in

each “cell” of the matrix, put an indicator of the effect of each

alternative. These indicators might be numerical estimates of

costs or amounts of water, but they can also be simple terms

like “good, neutral, or bad,” or “high, medium, or low.”

If more detail is needed to display the information, create one

matrix for cost information, another for water savings, another

for environmental effects, etc. This general approach is very

flexible and can be easily adapted to suit your needs.
The Planning Process

51

Figure 4: Evaluation Matrix
Section Two

52

STEP 6 – DEFINING A PLAN OF ACTION

Overview

In this step of the planning process you will decide which of the

measures evaluated in Step 5 you want to implement. While

you may feel that you already know what you want to do, it is a

good idea to take a little time to systematically review the

information developed and be sure you are starting out with the

most useful and effective management improvements. Your

plan should have at least one measure, either a current activity

or new measure, to accomplish each goal identified in Step 3.

You may ultimately want to combine various management

improvement measures into programs. A program is simply a

logically-related set of activities. You might, for example,

define a water measurement program that includes three

measures: installation of meters or flumes on farm turnouts,

more systematic observation of canal and lateral flows by

ditchriders, and obtaining a database program for your personal

computer to help store and analyze the data.

Your action plan will consist of one or more water management

improvement programs. A schedule and budget to support the

activities in each program should be defined.

Selecting Measures for Implementation

Comparing Measures With Goals

The most important indicator of whether a measure should be

selected and incorporated into your action plan is how well that

measure contributes to achieving the goals defined in Step 3. 

Measures that do a better job of achieving your goals obviously

are preferable to those that do a poorer job of achieving your

goals.

If some of the goals are expressed in quantitative terms, you

should be able to make a very precise comparison of measures

relative to those goals. For example, if your goal is to reduce

the amount of water lost to seepage from laterals, by a certain

percent, you can compare canal lining approaches on the basis

of what percent seepage reduction each is expected to have.
The Planning Process

53

Comparing Measures by Relative Cost

Another approach to deciding which measures to implement is

to rank them on the basis of implementation cost. These costs

should be expressed in comparable terms such as annual or

capitalized cost, and they should address both initial costs and

ongoing maintenance costs. The timing of costs may be

important if the district has other special financial requirements

or situations.

Comparing Measures by Ease of Implementation

Clearly, some water management measures are easier to

implement, politically, institutionally and technically, than

others. Another approach to deciding which measures to

implement is to rank them according to “ease of

implementation” criteria. However, it is difficult to adopt this

approach on anything other than a subjective basis. It may be

more desirable to use subjective factors as “fatal flaw”

screening criteria for elimination of alternatives that pose

insurmountable political, institutional, or technical problems.

Comparing Measures on Benefit-Cost Basis

In this approach to evaluating alternative water management

measures, the district would consider programs that have the

highest benefits relative to costs. The ranking of programs by

benefits and costs ensures that the district pursues those

programs that are economically beneficial. The benefit-cost

evaluation may be based on a variety of values. An evaluation

based on saved water would involve two components:

• Evaluating the benefit of saved water: You should

carefully analyze the value of water that your district saves

through improved management and how that water can best

be used. For example, your district might be able to resell

the water to a municipality provided there are no restrictions

on selling irrigation water for municipal use. Similarly,

saved water could be put in a Water Bank for irrigation use. 

The benefit of the saved water in either case would be the

price that could be obtained per unit of water sold.

• Evaluating the cost of saved water: You should describe

the cost of management improvements on a dollar-per-unitof-water-saved basis. This is done by estimating the annual

cost of the measure divided by the estimated amount of

water saved annually. Measures can be ranked from the
Section Two

54

lowest cost per unit to the highest cost per unit.

Comparing Measures by Environmental Effects

Environmental effects are often the hidden costs and benefits of

improved water management. Some measures will have more

environmental consequences than others. A measure may have

positive effects on drainage, erosion, and quality of return flows

but may have detrimental effects on wetlands. A preliminary

comparison of measures on the basis of environmental effects

will help you anticipate what permits will be required, which

government agencies will be involved, and what kind of support

you will receive from the community.

Other General Considerations

Complementary and Conflicting Measures

Another thing to consider is the possibility that some water

management measures may be complementary or conflicting. 

Complementary measures are measures that, when implemented

together, would enhance the effectiveness of each other. 

Conflicting measures are those for which the successful

implementation of one measure diminished the potential

effectiveness of another measure; such measures should not be

considered for implementation together.

Water measurement and incentive-pricing are examples of

complementary measures. Clearly, without good measurement

of farm deliveries it would be impossible to know how much

water an individual irrigator used during a given billing period. 

Accordingly, incentive pricing should not be considered unless

development of adequate water measurement and accounting

systems is considered along with it.

An example of conflicting measures would be encouraging

installation of sprinklers and construction of on-farm reuse

ponds. It is typical for the production of surface runoff (i.e.,

tailwater) to decline when sprinklers are substituted for surface

application methods. Reuse ponds generally are designed to

capture tailwater. Accordingly, if these two measures were

being considered, it would be advisable to defer constructing the

reuse ponds until the effects of sprinklers on tailwater

production are well understood.
The Planning Process

55

Conservation Investments by Others

The de-regulation of the electrical utilities industry in the

United States holds some potentially interesting lessons for the

water industry. One of these is the concept of “privatizing”

investments in conservation. This concept might be applied to

water conservation measures you think may be beyond your

financial capabilities to adopt.

Under this concept, the district could define water management

and conservation measures which require significant investment

(canal lining, installation of sprinkler systems, etc.) and which

are consistent with the district’s overall internal goals, but

which are beyond the financial reach of the district and its

irrigators. Other entities within or outside the district would

then be allowed to invest in one or more of these districtdefined water conservation measures and would be entitled to

some or all of the water saved, based on a satisfactory

demonstration of actual savings achieved.

The recent agreement between the Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California (MWD) and the Imperial Irrigation

District (IID) is an example of this concept applied to water

conservation. The MWD agreed to invest in substantial water

conservation measures in the Imperial Valley (canal lining, 12-

hour deliveries, drip systems, etc.) in return for access to the

saved water for municipal purposes.

There may be water transfer aspects of this concept that need to

be evaluated for it to be applicable westwide. However, it

emphasizes the need to examine all possible water management

measures, irrespective of the district’s financial ability to pay

for them.

After presenting their findings to the Board of Directors, Ron and the advisory committee

open the discussion for questions. The first question is about water measurement. Jim,

the board chairman, says that he thinks it might be too expensive. Earl, the third board

member, thinks the district is way behind other districts and needs to make the sacrifice,

if for no other reason than to protect the district’s water rights. They finally agree that

they can make it work if they spread the installation over 3 years.

The big discussion addressed the need to improve efficiencies and match diversions to

actual crop water needs. Jim suggested that he was agreeable to a new ordering policy. 

Sid thought the policy would be unworkable without helping farmers know when to order

water. Irrigation scheduling is essential. 
Section Two

56

Ron reported on the two methods that had been investigated and suggested that publishing

the crop evaptranspiration data would be a good way to start. Then, more technical

methods could be considered in the future. He also recommended that an education

campaign would need to accompany the program. "Irrigation scheduling? The farmers are

never going to go for that. How will they benefit?" asks Jim. 

"Well, we'll definitely have to keep up our end of the deal. We'll have to make sure that

they get the water they need, when they need it. The benefits should be higher yields,

better quality crops and more cropping options, if we do this right," responds Ron. 

"We've spent a fair amount of time looking at this and we recommend implementing an

irrigation scheduling program, with the extension agent's help on ET estimates, and starting

a couple of demonstration programs," says Ron. "We believe that these steps will take us a

long way toward achieving our delivery service goals." 

Iris adds, "It should shift the bulk of the diversions to better coincide with the water

demands, and give us more late-season water. Everyone will like that. Reclamation has

agreed to work with us at Spring Mountain, to make sure we don't lose anything by keeping

our water in the reservoir later." 

"Huh, and that should make the boaters and fishermen quiet down, for a while anyway,"

grumbles Jim. 

"Hey, be careful . . . a lot of our farmers are fishermen too. Including yours truly!"

protests Earl. 

The Board then turns to the concept of incentive pricing. "I don't see how we could start

imposing water rates, Sid. It would be a good way to address the fairness issue but only if

we can demonstrate to the farmers that we can adequately measure each farmer's use,"

says Earl. "Maybe after we've put in a few flumes and weirs we could start actively

promoting incentive pricing so that when we finish installing all the flumes we will have some

confidence and support." 

The Board concurs with the committee’s other recommendations and decides to take the

recommendations to the irrigators and the community at another public meeting. They

instruct Ron and the advisory committee to compile their investigations and

recommendations into a draft water management plan for distribution before the meeting. 

"And keep it short and simple!" snorts Jim.
The Planning Process

57

Projecting Results of Selected Measures

Once you have decided which measures and programs will be

part of your water management action plan, you will develop

estimates of program water savings and other benefits, costs,

and environmental consequences. You should be able to make

these estimates from the information you developed in

evaluating alternative measures.

Water Savings

The projected water savings of your plan might be derived by

simply adding the projected savings of the measures that make

up the plan, unless there are significant interactions between

these measures. The water savings associated with some

measures may be predicted fairly accurately. For example,

concrete lining of distribution canals will predictably reduce

losses to a few percent. The water savings associated with some

other measures will be more difficult to predict, particularly if

the measures rely on voluntary adoption of methods by

individual irrigators. Some measures may not have watersaving effects.

The timing of water savings should also be considered for some

measures, savings will be immediate once the measure is

implemented, while for others the saving will only be realized

over a period of time.

Cost

The cost of program implementation should be estimated in

terms of initial costs and ongoing costs. The projected useful

life of facilities or equipment should be considered here, since

maintenance and replacement will be required over the long run.

By mapping these costs out over time you can create a cashflow requirements table. A comparable cash-flow table should

be developed for any revenues the district contemplates

receiving in connection with the measures (e.g., from the sale or

lease of water). These cost and revenue schedules will then

facilitate development of net-annual-cost or net-capitalized-cost

equivalents for budgeting purposes.
Section Two

58

Environmental Consequences

You made some preliminary assessments of the environmental

consequences of various plan elements in Step 5 and made some

relative comparisons of possible measures in Step 6 of the

planning process. Once you have decided on the elements that

are to be part of your overall plan, you should prepare a written

summary description of the probable environmental

consequences of the overall plan.

It is not expected that this description be a formal

environmental assessment or impact statement, or a substitute

for such documents. It should simply alert readers to the

generally anticipated effects of the selected program of water

management and conservation measures. Specific benefits or

impacts of consequence (both positive and negative), as well as

areas of uncertainty, should be highlighted. There should also

be some indication of the environmental compliance

requirements that must be satisfied in order to implement the

plan. You may wish to contact your local Reclamation Water

Conservation Coordinator for further assistance.

Preparing an Implementation Schedule and Budget

In order to make your water management plan a reality, you

need to define the sequence of activities and then allocate the

necessary resources (funds, staff, equipment, facilities, etc.) to

support those activities.

Schedule

The implementation schedule for your plan should reflect the

time required to develop the various measures included in the

plan. Certain changes may need to be presented to users as

proposals first, allowing for some educational time before

implementing actual changes. There also may be time required

to develop necessary information and control systems and for

district staff training.

Measures involving equipment acquisition or construction will

almost certainly require a more detailed feasibility study than

they have been given in the management plan. This study

would then be followed by preliminary and final design and

preparation of construction plans. Permitting and

environmental compliance may also be required before actual

construction can begin. These intermediate steps should all be

considered part of the water management program and be
The Planning Process

59

shown in the plan and on the schedule.

Budget

The district budget for implementing the management plan will

be based on the cash-flow requirements of the plan and the netcapitalized or net-annual cost of the plan. Depending on the

contents of the plan, it may be possible to allocate funds from

existing revenue streams for plan implementation.

If additional revenues are needed, the budgeting process will be

dependent on the potential sources of that revenue. Some

possibilities are increases in water service charges or water

rates, increases in mill levies, and issuance of revenue or

general-obligation bonds. It is possible that revenues from

some of these sources will not develop immediately; if so, the

plan implementation schedule will need to reflect the time

required for this revenue development.

Staffing and Other Resources

Some aspects of the management plan may require additional

effort by district staff. The plan should describe how duties

would be assigned or how additional staff would be recruited

and supported.

Many water management activities will require the commitment

of some district equipment or other facilities in addition to its

staff. The plan should identify to what extent and when these

additional resources will be needed to ensure that they will be

available at the appropriate time.

Preparing a Monitoring Program

An important part of your water management plan is identifying

and quantifying the water saving and other effects it achieves. 

This should take the form of an ongoing monitoring program

because the effects of some measures will not be immediately

evident.

Typically, it will not be possible to measure these effects

directly. Water savings may be evident in reductions in

diversions, farm deliveries, spills, drain flows, etc. These

quantities have substantial natural variation from year to year,

and you may need to accumulate several years of data in order

to determine whether there has been a significant change. The
Section Two

60

parameters you originally examined in constructing your district

water budget are the same ones you need to monitor to identify

water savings. Monitoring effects may involve installation of

measuring devices, better observation of existing

measurements, more frequent spot checks, etc.

Your water management and conservation plan will not be

complete without a description of the approach you intend to

take to monitor its success.
The Planning Process

61

STEP 7 – IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OF ACTION

Up to this point, you have probably committed considerable

staff time and/or money to develop your water management and

conservation plan. You must now follow through to ensure that

the district implements the plan. Otherwise, all prior efforts

have been wasted. It is important to follow the implementation

schedule outlined in the plan to ensure that necessary resources

will be available when needed.

Successful implementation of the plan is a team effort. The

Board of Directors and management must take the lead in

implementing the program. Theirs is the final decision in what

activities will be undertaken by the staff. Similarly, the

district’s staff and employees need to be committed to the

program and work aggressively for implementation of the plan. 

Finally, the irrigators and other stakeholder must also support

the plan.
Section Two

62

STEP 8 – MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

The water management and conservation plan could involve a

significant commitment of the district’s resources to implement

the plan. It is essential that implementation progress be

monitored to verify that results are being achieved as expected. 

This is typically a management and staff responsibility to ensure

that the appropriate information is collected in an accurate and

timely manner. The monitoring program described in the plan

should be followed except where improvements can be made in

the original plan.
The Planning Process

63

STEP 9 – EVALUATING PROGRESS AND UPDATING THE PLAN

The plan represents a snapshot in a world of changing

conditions. Implementation of the various water management

measures may or may not produce the anticipated results. Also,

other circumstances may change that could alter the effects of

the measures.

Information obtained from the monitoring program should be

evaluated on a regular basis. The plan should be reviewed

annually to refine issues or goals, add or delete measures, adjust

the implementation schedule, or refine the budget. Those

districts required to submit plans to Reclamation should submit

updated plans every 5 years.
Section Two

64

The draft water management plan was generally well received by the district irrigators. 

They liked the idea of more control over when they received water but were somewhat

skeptical about the demonstration programs. They insisted that the demonstration

programs be relevant and affordable, perhaps including some surge valves or gated pipe. 

Comments from the public were favorable, especially those from representatives of the

downstream municipality. They were especially encouraged by the district's commitment to

an irrigation scheduling program. They had been considering upgrading their water

treatment plant because drainage and return flows from the district were of such poor

quality. Recreational users of the reservoir also had positive remarks and offered to work

with the district to see what more could be done to maintain levels at the reservoir. 

These comments and suggestions were incorporated into the water management plan, and an

implementation schedule and budget were developed. The schedule assumed that the

easiest steps would be made first, so that any design or permit applications for the more

complicated improvements could move ahead at the same time. Finally, a monitoring

program was created to monitor progress of implementing the plan.

With these additions, the Board approved the plan. Ron was instructed to begin

implementing the plan immediately. He was also instructed to report back to the Board

annually on the progress being made to implement the plan. He should tell the Board what is

working as planned, what is not working as well as expected, and recommend any changes, if

necessary, that should be made in the plan.

Iris called around for bids on the demonstration hardware and the flumes. Ron worked out

the details between the newspaper, Larry and the county extension agent to get ET rates

and effective precipitation information published each day. Wendell put together a

procedure for getting feedback from the farmers. 

Ron worked with Reclamation to refine the ordering process so that he could tailor

deliveries to irrigation requirements. He contacted the farmers frequently over the first

season, to see if the system was working. As soon as the flumes were installed, Ron started

keeping records and began refining the water budget to better understand the district's

losses and spills. He periodically compared this new data to the district's stated goals and

objectives to see if they were on track. 

Then one day he got a call from the Riverdale Irrigation District, just downstream of

Springfield. They had heard that Springfield had put together a water management plan

and wanted to know more about it. 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

65

SECTION THREE – CATALOG OF WATER MANAGEMENT

MEASURES

This section of the Guidebook contains descriptions of many

common agricultural water management measures and

practices. This information will help you identify candidate

measures having the capability of achieving your specific goals. 

It will help you evaluate the candidate water management

improvements you have identified to determine which measures

will be best for achieving your goals. It will: 

L Describe a variety of types of water management practices

and measures 

L Ask you questions that help identify the candidate measures

that are relevant to your goals

L Help you evaluate which candidate water management

measures best address your goals 
Section Three

66

FUNDAMENTAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Reclamation has identified four fundamental water management

measures that should be considered in any water management

program. They are: 

• Adequate Water Measurement and Accounting 

• Water Pricing Structure that Encourages Efficiency 

• Information and Education Services for Water Users

• Designation of a Water Conservation Coordinator

Water Measurement and Accounting Systems

Effective water measurement and accounting is necessary for

developing a sound water management program. A district's

measurement and accounting systems should be capable of

tracking the amount of water delivered to individual water

users. These systems are effective water management tools

because they help inform both the water user and the district

about the quantity, timing, and location of water use. 

From the district's perspective, water measurement will help

with: 

• Assembling information needed for a detailed water budget

• Identifying areas where additional efficiency can be

achieved 

• Implementing a billing system based on deliveries

At the farm level, water measurement will help with application

of the proper amount of water to meet crop requirements and

therefore may help to: 

• Reduce erosion 

• Improve crop yield and quality

• Reduce fertilizer leaching 

• Reduce drainage problems 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

67

An effective water measurement and accounting system should

accommodate some form of volumetric pricing and billing for

individual users. The "ideal" water measurement system has

flow measurements at all points in the diversion, conveyance

and delivery system where flow division takes place, including

farm turnouts and tailwater, drainage, and system spill

locations. The actual number of flow monitoring stations

required would depend on the size and complexity of the

conveyance system. Where physical measurement capability at

each agricultural turnout is determined to be infeasible,

approaches can still be developed to provide individual user

accountability and billing based on "blocks" or groups of users. 

The ideal system would provide data on a real-time basis

through use of automatic recording and data transmission

devices. A comprehensive measurement program provides all

the delivery information needed to develop a detailed

system-wide water budget. 

To determine where measurement is most needed, the following

questions should be considered: 

? Do you know amounts of water diverted into the system,

in terms of flow rates, volumes, timing, and location? 

? Do you know how much water was conveyed down

major canals and laterals and turned out at individual

farms? 

? Do you know the amounts, timing, and location of

system spills? 

? Do you know the amounts, timing, and location of

tailwater either leaving or returning to the system? 

There are a variety of methods for measuring flows in canals,

laterals, and drainage ways; and measuring on-farm deliveries. 

Many of these techniques are discussed in detail in

Reclamation's Water Measurement Manual and supporting

documents. 

Water use accounting systems will vary between districts,

depending on the complexity of the district's conveyance system

and the amount of water measurement data available. For

example, in some districts a simple ledger sheet might be used

to track deliveries to a relatively small number of individual

users or down a few canals or laterals. Other districts may use
Section Three

68

commercially available computer software or custom software

developed to track deliveries through a complex system. 

The appropriate accounting system must be determined at the

district level, but in general, more detail is better. At a

minimum, the accounting system should allow for tracking of

water deliveries to individual users in order to accommodate a

billing system based on deliveries. 

Water Pricing Structure

To encourage efficient water use, a district's pricing and billing

procedures should be based, at least in part, on the quantity of

water delivered. Quantity-based charges can be incorporated

into various existing pricing structures to provide some degree

of economic incentive for efficient water use. Fairness in water

billing is an additional benefit of quantity-based pricing

structures. 

Disincentives to efficient water use include situations where the

unit price of water declines as the volume of water used

increases (declining block structure) or where a fixed charge per

acre of irrigated land is assessed regardless of the quantity of

water used. Both of these examples can lead to excessive water

use. By contrast, pricing structures such as increasing block

rates or fixed rates provide an economic incentive for more

efficient use. Figure 5 depicts some different types of water

pricing structures. 

When evaluating water pricing structures, it is important to

consider potential effects on revenues generated through water

sales. Under the new pricing system, will there be sufficient

revenues to cover district operating costs? Will modifications to

the pricing structure result in supplemental revenues that could

be used to develop more improvements? 

Districts can encourage efficient water use by increasing the

unit price of water as deliveries increase. With incentive

pricing, a base price per unit of water is charged for all water

deliveries up to a certain amount, or block. Water use in excess

of this block is then charged at a higher unit price. One or

more pricing levels (or "tiers") may exist within a pricing

structure. The specific design of these structures will depend

on individual district objectives. 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

69

Figure 5: Types of Water Pricing Structures

The demand for water within an irrigation district is based on

crop production and planning decisions made at the farm level. 

It also depends on crop selection, irrigation technique, and land

characteristics. The change in water demand in response to a

change in water price is termed "demand elasticity." Factors

affecting demand elasticity include: 

• Crop values 

• Crop tolerance to water shortages 

• Ability to change crops 

• Ability to change irrigation methods 

• Availability of alternative water sources 

Typically, changes in water prices lead to only small changes in
Section Three

70

the quantity of water demanded. Therefore, the water supply

and demand relationship is fairly "inelastic." Water demand,

price elasticity, and potential changes in district revenues

resulting from price changes are important considerations in

evaluating the use of incentive pricing as a water management

measure. 

Incentive pricing programs may be structured to optimize

conjunctive use. For instance, a program may be designed to

encourage surface water deliveries and groundwater recharge in

wet years by lowering the price to the grower. In dry years, the

surface water price can be increased to encourage increased

groundwater extractions. 

Incentive pricing has successfully been implemented in

California's Broadview Water District. The purpose of this

structure is to motivate growers to improve the efficiencies of

their on-farm irrigation operations and to reduce the quantity of

drainage water. The district's increasing block rate pricing

structure has two components, crop-specific price levels and

field-level accounting of water deliveries. Crop-specific price

levels are required because the volume of drain water generated

from water application varies from crop to crop. Crops with

higher ET rates are permitted to receive more irrigation water

before reaching the higher price level. Without these

concessions, growers could be limited in the kinds of crops they

plant. 

Field-level accounting of water deliveries encourages the

growers to carefully monitor their irrigation supplies. 

Incentive pricing may be an appropriate water management

measure if the district's existing pricing structure is based on a

fixed rate or if water charges are not linked to the amount of

water delivered. To evaluate incentive pricing and other rate

structures for your district, refer to the information and methods

presented in Reclamation's Incentive Pricing Handbook for

Agricultural Water Districts. 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

71

Educational Programs

An important component of any water management program is

providing information to irrigators about efficient water use and

water management services available through the district or

other organizations. Educational programs can be effective

because many water users are unaware of potential benefits

from improvements in water use efficiency. Examples of

educational programs include irrigation system improvement

programs, on-farm irrigation scheduling programs, real-time

agricultural evapotranspiration (ET) information, school and

community educational programs, and technical and financial

assistance programs. Information on the following topics could

be made available to irrigators: 

• Costs and potential water savings of water management

measures 

• Best management practices for soil and water conservation

• Irrigation method efficiencies 

• Soil characteristics 

• Day-to-day crop water requirements 

• Actual on-farm water use from delivery records

• Actual district-wide water use and efficiencies

There are a variety of ways the district could convey this

information to its water users. For example, a district could

sponsor workshops covering topics such as weather, crop ET,

soil moisture holding capacity, crop characteristics, and the role

these factors play in irrigation scheduling and water use

planning. Educational workshops also can serve the district by

providing a forum for irrigators to exchange ideas and

experience. It might be appropriate to provide basic wise water

use information to the general public residing within the district. 

Educational programs could include written publications, dial-in

telephone services, or monthly water bills that provide water

use data. Various local, state, and federal agencies provide

technical assistance for agricultural activities. Districts should

take advantage of these resources when developing their own

programs. 

Demonstration projects are another useful technique for
Section Three

72

educating water users. In these projects, specific measures are

implemented in a controlled setting to allow precise

determination of the effects. The results from monitoring

demonstration projects are then presented to district water users,

along with cost and implementation information. 

Designating a Water Conservation Coordinator 

Designating a district water conservation coordinator serves two

primary functions: it allows the district to assign water

conservation responsibilities and it provides a focal point

through which all district water users and staff can consult. 

Responsibilities of a water conservation coordinator may

include: 

• Developing education and training programs 

• Distributing data on soils, climate and crop water

requirements

• Providing technical assistance on irrigation techniques

• Developing demonstration projects 

• Assisting with irrigation scheduling 

Reclamation and other agencies provide formal training in

various aspects of water management. Such resources allow

conservation coordinators to keep up-to-date with conservation

programs, services, and technological developments. 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

73

INSTITUTIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

This section discusses water management measures which

might be implemented through institutional changes, that is, by

changing rules and policies. These measures include: 

• Water Shortage Contingency Planning 

• On-farm Conservation Incentives 

• Water Transfers 

• Land Management 

Water Shortage Contingency Plan 

Drought mitigation may most effectively be accomplished

through a combination of water development, water

conservation programs and a drought preparedness or

contingency plan. The basic objectives of a plan would

include: 

• Hydrologic forecasting to predict water supply

• Definition of water allocation procedures to be used during

drought periods 

• Identification of methods to increase reliability and use

efficiency of existing water supplies 

• Identification of alternative or supplemental water supplies

Hydrologic forecasting to predict water availability can provide

farmers with information that will help them prepare for a

drought. For example, given a forecast, farmers can choose to

irrigate less land or grow crops that require less water. 

Forecasting also will help the district assess the need for

temporary operational changes or supplemental water supplies. 

Water allocation procedures used during normal hydrologic

conditions may not be appropriate during times of drought. For

example, conveyance and delivery systems may not be designed

for precisely targeted deliveries, or there may be inequities

related to either location of farms or types of crops grown. 

Water rationing techniques might include fixed allotments,

percentage reductions, increased pricing, or restrictions on

specific cropping. Defining allocation procedures before

drought conditions begin will provide farmers with fairly
Section Three

74

certain information as to what they can expect in terms of water

deliveries and will allow them to plan accordingly. 

An important component of a water shortage contingency plan

is the identification of alternative or supplemental water sources

to use in emergency situations. The plan should define

"triggers" that would initiate use of these alternative sources. It

should also estimate the amount and timing of supplies expected

from these sources. Potential alternative sources or techniques

that might be used to supplement a district's water supply during

drought periods include: 

• Interruptible supplies (temporary transfers or dry-year

options) 

• Intra-district transfers 

• Exchange arrangements 

• Water banks 

• Storage hedging, carryover storage, and conservation

storage

• Integrated operations with other water suppliers

If your district already has a plan, it may be necessary to review

and update the plan to reflect changes in system operation,

farming practices, forecasting technology, or potential

alternative water supplies. Some questions to consider when

establishing, developing, or updating a water shortage

contingency plan include: 

? Does your district have a water shortage contingency

plan and is it up-to-date in terms of operating

procedures, farming activities, water allocation schemes

and forecasting methods?

? Has a water shortage contingency plan ever been

implemented due to drought conditions and if so, how

severe was the drought? How well did the plan work?

? Are water users in the district aware of existing drought

contingency policies and water allocation procedures

during drought periods?
Catalog of Water Management Measures

75

On-farm Conservation Incentives 

For some growers, the ability to implement efficient on-farm

management practices and install modern water application

equipment is hampered by the lack of capital. On-farm water

management measures might include ditch lining, development

of water reuse systems, installation of surge valves and gated

pipes, sprinkler systems, field leveling, and soil treatments. 

Farmers may be willing to improve their irrigation efficiencies

if long-term financing or other assistance is available from the

district or other sources. Programs to provide incentives for

on-farm water management may include financing incentives,

in-kind services, and educational programs. 

Some financial incentives which may be made available by the

district include: 

• Low interest equipment loans and leases 

• Equipment purchase subsidies 

• Water charge discounts or rebates for efficient water use 

An incentive program may also consist of in-kind services to

water users. For example, a district might establish a service to

install on-farm soil moisture monitoring devices or provide

climatic and crop water requirement data on a site-specific

basis. Such in-kind services may also be a part of efforts to

improve district-wide irrigation scheduling. 

Demonstration projects and educational programs may act as

water management incentives by making farmers aware of

different measures and the potential benefits of their use. For

example, districts might set up projects to demonstrate the

effectiveness of using gated pipes and automatic surge valve

controls to eliminate the time-consuming process of manually

adjusting irrigation settings. 

In developing on-farm program incentives, the primary

challenge faced by a district will be that of achieving good

participation by water users. Financing opportunities, in-kind

services, and educational programs may all be required to

develop this participation. 

For many districts, improvements in on-farm water use

efficiencies offer the best opportunity for improving overall

district water use efficiencies. Therefore, on-farm program
Section Three

76

incentives will be an important water management measure for

almost all districts. 

Water Transfers

Water transfers generally try to move water from areas of

surplus to areas of shortage. They may be an effective

technique for meeting water demands and for managing the

impacts of drought. The objective of the mechanisms

discussed here is to facilitate voluntary transfers that do not

unreasonably affect the district, the environment, or third

parties. 

Water transfers can take many different forms and can serve a

number of different purposes in the planning and operation of a

district's irrigation system. The specific objectives of the

district, in addition to certain legal or institutional constraints,

will dictate which type of transfer mechanism is most

appropriate. Types of transfers include: 

• Permanent transfers 

• Contingent transfers/dry year options 

• Tradeable shares or allotments 

• Water banking 

• Transfers of reclaimed, conserved or surplus water

• Water wheeling or other exchanges 

A permanent transfer involves the acquisition and change in

ownership of water rights or allotments. Permanent transfers

might be arranged on an intra-district basis or between the

district and water users outside of the district. 

Contingent transfers and dry-year options are temporary

arrangements. These transfers often define an "interruptible

supply" that may periodically be used under certain conditions

such as drought. 

The simplest type of water transfer mechanism that a district

might implement would be to set up a system of tradeable water

shares. For example, the district might define shares or units

representing fixed water allocations that could be bought and

sold by irrigators within the district. In districts that are

characterized by a wide range of crop values, such intra-district
Catalog of Water Management Measures

77

transfers would likely result in water allocations that maximize

overall district economic benefit. 

Water banking refers to arrangements whereby excess or

unneeded water may be consigned to a "bank" by one user (or

district). The water can then be purchased by another user who

needs more. Water banks have been used to facilitate transfers

to users outside irrigation districts and for uses other than

irrigation. 

Wheeling arrangements typically refer to cooperative

agreements aimed at improving the storage or conveyance

performance of a system. For example, an arrangement may

call for water belonging to one district to be carried in a

common canal with water from another district, thereby

reducing overall canal seepage and evaporative losses. Losses

might then be shared proportionally by both districts. 

Transfers may also involve the right to use water that is made

available by reclamation or reduction in water demands, or

through successful water conservation efforts. The right to use

reclaimed or conserved water is a legal issue that will vary by

state. In some areas, such water may simply revert back to the

original source and become available to other users. In other

areas, it may be possible for the entity responsible for the water

savings to sell or lease the water to other users. Some districts

have been able to finance conservation programs through sale of

the rights to conserved water. 

Some of the questions you should consider in evaluating the

relevance of water transfer measures to your district include: 

? Do federal laws, state laws, contract provisions, or

district bylaws prohibit or encumber water transfers

through specific restrictions or limits on transfers?

? Would transfers involve federal water rights, storage or

conveyance facilities, or affect existing federal project

operations, and would a transfer be consistent with

existing contractual agreements?

? Are there unmet demands within the district or in the

general area that might be served by a water transfer?

? Are the district conveyance facilities sized and located

favorably to facilitate potential transfer opportunities?
Section Three

78

Land Management

Land retirement, fallowing, or conversion to dry-land farming

may be an appropriate water management measure if needed

improvements in water use efficiency cannot be achieved on

specific farms or fields. Land retirement refers to the

permanent removal of irrigation supplies, while fallowing refers

to a temporary removal of irrigation supplies. Conversion to

dry-land farming may be appropriate if local soils and climate

conditions support production of alternative crops. 

Lands within most irrigation districts have been classified by

Reclamation according to their irrigability and potential

productivity. The classification process considers soil

characteristics, topography, drainage, water quality, economics

of production, land development, and climate. Class 1 lands

are considered to have the most production potential and to be

most easily irrigated within the project area. Higher class

numbers are assigned to lands expected to be less productive

and less efficiently irrigated or relatively expensive to develop

for irrigation. 

Land classifications often date to the time of original

establishment of an irrigation district and may be outdated due

to improvements in irrigation technologies and farming

practices. For example, the availability of land-leveling

techniques means that significant improvements could be made

to the irrigability of some lands. It is important to consider if

existing classifications are still accurate. First-hand knowledge

of field situations is often the best information source for

district-wide planning. 

The decision to retire land, fallow it, or convert to dry-land

farming may depend on many factors in addition to the lands'

irrigability. These factors would include economic

implications for both the farmers and the district and potential

alternative uses of the lands. With regard to alternative land

uses, increased demand for recreational facilities has provided

an opportunity for conversion of some agricultural lands in

Arizona to parks, golf courses, and shooting ranges. 

Alternative uses may be permanent in nature or may be such

that re-establishment of agricultural practices is possible at

some point in the future. The permanence of the change will

play an important factor in considering the economic viability

of land management changes. 

Once certain lands have been identified as potential candidates

for land use changes, the district must encourage land owners to

accept and make the changes. Some incentives include: 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

79

• Outright purchase of low irrigability lands 

• Modification of district boundaries to exclude low

irrigability lands 

• Tax incentives for ceasing to irrigate certain lands

• Payment in-kind programs 

• Water pricing structures favorable to higher quality lands 

• Demonstration projects and education programs on dryland

farming 

Questions to help determine if this measure is relevant to your

district include: 

? Are there lands within your district that would be

candidates for retirement or fallowing because of poor

irrigability or productivity?

? Does your district have legal authority to acquire low

irrigability lands through outright purchase or

condemnation?

? Does your district have the legal authority to provide tax

incentives for farming of lands with high irrigability?

? Does your district have the legal authority or contractual

flexibility to structure water prices based on irrigability

of lands?
Section Three

80

OPERATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES

This section discusses water management measures which would involve changes in

system operations. These measures include: 

• Improved Operating Procedures 

• Improved Distribution Control 

• System-wide Irrigation Scheduling 

• On-farm Irrigation Scheduling 

• Conjunctive Use of Surface and Groundwater 

Improved Operating Procedures 

Changes to a district's operating procedures may provide for

increased delivery and storage flexibility. Some operating

procedures which might be candidates for improvement are: 

• Water ordering and delivery 

• Canal/lateral operating practices 

• Reservoir operations 

• Integrated system operation 

Methods for scheduling water deliveries to individual farms

vary depending on characteristics of the available water supply,

diversion and conveyance facilities, and irrigation water

demands. The advantages and disadvantages of different water

ordering and delivery scheduling methods must be considered

from the perspectives of both the district and its water users. 

For example, schedules based on a fixed amount and fixed

frequency of delivery may require the least capital investment

and operating cost to the district. However, they can result in a

severe mismatch between supply and demand at the farm level. 

Delivering water on demand requires very active participation

by the district in demand forecasting and control of delivery

facilities, but will usually reduce waste and under-deliveries. 

In general, schedules that allow for the most flexibility in both

timing and amounts of water delivery will be the most

expensive to operate. The costs associated with increasing this

flexibility must be balanced with district objectives and
Catalog of Water Management Measures

81

expected benefits. 

Closely related to a district's scheduling system are canal and

lateral operating procedures. Some districts must run canals

full in order to serve certain laterals or farm turnouts. During

periods of reduced demand, this practice may result in

significant spills at the ends of the canals. To avoid these

spills, the district might institute a policy whereby canal levels

would be more actively managed and would fluctuate

seasonally. This might require modifications to some turnouts

or siphons, but it could also provide substantial water savings. 

Also, with proper management of checks, larger canals

themselves can provide a measure of regulatory storage

capability.

Reservoir operations are another area where modifications can

be made to improve efficiency. For example, releases made

only in response to irrigation demand may greatly reduce the

probability that storage water releases will go unused on farms. 

A policy which allows for carryover of storage water

allotments, rather than "use it or lose it" policies may reduce the

tendency for irrigators to use late season water even when it's

not needed by crops. Policies also might be adopted to allow

dedication of carryover storage to a water banking system. 

Integrating the operations of several districts can improve water

use efficiencies while at the same time improving overall

system yield. Integrated operations have been particularly

successful in areas where storage or delivery facilities are

shared. For example, studies of the Colorado-Big

Thompson/Windy Gap projects in northern Colorado have

shown that integrated operations can increase the reliability of

both systems. 

To evaluate the relevance of improved operating procedures for

your district, consider the following questions: 

? Does your district have flexibility, in terms of physical

limitations and legal and contractual obligations, to

modify its current operating practices and procedures?

? Can your district adjust deliveries based on changes in

demand? 

? What is your district's policy concerning carryover of

water allotments within and between irrigation seasons?

? Does your district allow water users to transfer portions
Section Three

82

of their allotments to other water users either inside or

outside the district? 

? Are there opportunities to coordinate operations of the

district's facilities with the facilities of other irrigation

systems in the area?

Distribution Control

Distribution control refers to the ability of the district to control

delivery rates and amounts of water. Of particular interest are

the physical capacities of the system (diversion structures,

canals and laterals), control mechanisms (gates, checks, and

weirs), and the ability of the district to operate these facilities in

response to changes in water demands and hydrologic

conditions. Limitations on physical features of the distribution

system or difficulties responding to changes in hydrology and

water demands may result in over-delivery to farm turnouts and

system spills, or under-deliveries, water shortages, crop stress

and lower crop yields. 

Measures to improve distribution control may be categorized as

either facility-related, measurement-related, or communicationrelated. Facility-related improvements include installation of

new structures or improvements to existing structures to more

precisely manipulate flow rates and head levels (check dams,

variable flow rate turnouts, remote or automated controls). 

Regulatory storage and spill interceptor canals are two

facility-related measures discussed in detail later in this section. 

Improvements in flow measurement may be needed to help

monitor and control water distribution. The use of a specific

measuring technique will depend on hydraulic conditions and

characteristics of the situation. Many measurement techniques

may be used in conjunction with automatic recording and data

transmission systems so that flow data may be available

immediately and continuously at a central control point. 

Timely information gathering, processing and dissemination to

facilities operators is essential to efficient system control and to

minimizing system waste. Operators must be kept informed of,

and be able to report, changes in hydrologic conditions and

diversion rates. Improving such communications may be as

simple as buying cellular phones for ditch riders. 

Questions to help you evaluate if this measure is relevant to

your district include: 
Catalog of Water Management Measures

83

? Is the district distribution system, or a portion of it,

operated under pressurized water conditions?

? Is your district able to modify the amount of water it

receives through its diversion facilities? Are there

contractual or legal obligations to divert at a fixed rate

or a fixed volume?

? Is your district able to modify flow rates in all parts of

the distribution system in a timely manner to match

localized demands?

? Does the district experience frequent and significant

operational spills or experience canal flooding when

demands drop?

System-wide Irrigation Scheduling 

System-wide irrigation scheduling attempts to schedule water

deliveries to match irrigation requirements. System scheduling

differs from on-farm scheduling in that, from a district

perspective, the objective is to understand aggregated irrigation

needs in district sub-areas, rather than on each individual farm. 

The district may then attempt to match deliveries to these

sub-areas, subject to certain operating and distribution control

constraints, as shown in Figure 6. 

Much of the data needed for system scheduling is the same as

for on-farm scheduling. In fact, one approach to system

scheduling is to base it on actual water orders from farms. 

However, it may be more effective for the district to develop its

own demand forecasts for specific crops and district sub-areas. 

Information required to develop irrigation demand forecasts

includes: 

• Types of crops grown 

• Acreages of each type of crop grown 

• Location of acreages (grouped into sub-areas by geographic

location) 

• Estimated ET for each crop type and sub-area 

• Estimated soil moisture conditions within each sub-area

• Estimates of irrigation application efficiencies for each
Section Three

84

Figure 6: Water Conservation Through

Improvements in System-wide Irrigation Scheduling

sub-area 

• Information on groundwater and sub-surface return flows

that may contribute to sub-irrigation 

Information about cropping patterns and acreages should only

need to be gathered once a year, though the acreage, types of

crops, and on-farm water application methods will likely change

from year to year. The ET rates and soil moisture conditions,

on the other hand, will change dramatically throughout the

irrigation season and up-to-date information will be needed on a

real-time basis. Therefore, the greatest challenge in irrigation

system scheduling may be the collection and processing of

continuous climate and soil moisture data to develop estimates

of crop water requirements. 

Techniques for estimating crop water requirements include

direct field observation and measurement, and theoretical

calculation based on climatic conditions. The direct techniques

include pan evaporation, visual inspection of plants, and

representative plot lysimeters. Recently, advances have been

made in the use of infrared sensing of crop moisture levels. 

Theoretical equations for estimating water requirements include

the Blaney-Criddle, Penman-Monteith, and Jensen-Haise

methods. 

Monitoring soil moisture provides information on the amount of
Catalog of Water Management Measures

85

water held within the root zone of the soil that is available to

meet crop needs. It may be measured by neutron probes,

tensiometers, electronic resistance blocks, and by feel and

appearance. 

It may be possible to use one or a combination of these methods

to estimate ET rates and soil moisture conditions. Because the

objective of the district will be to forecast water needs for

district sub-areas, data will not be necessary for each individual

farm. Instead, data collection points should be located such

that they provide information representative of the entire

sub-area. 

Processing information on climate and soil conditions in order

to forecast irrigation needs may be facilitated by a computerized

information management system (IMS). These systems have

already been developed in some areas. The California

Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), developed

by the California Department of Natural Resources, uses an

automated electronic weather station network to provide

up-to-the-minute ET information. The IMS's have also been

developed that use soil moisture data collected by networks of

neutron probe stations (rather than climate stations) to forecast

irrigation requirements. These systems are usually developed

for personal computers. 

Irrigation application efficiencies may be estimated from

application methods, characteristics of irrigated lands and soils,

discussions with farmers and comparisons of calculated crop

water requirements with historical farm deliveries. An

understanding of the reliance on subirrigation in different

sub-areas may be developed through discussions with individual

farmers or through examination of the water budget. 

The following questions should be considered to evaluate

relevance of this measure to your district: 

? Do your water accounting records or comments from

district water managers and individual farmers indicate

a good match between supply and demand at a

district-wide level?

? Is there a method by which farmers can place water

orders with the district based on need (i.e., irrigation

requirements)?

? Does your district support on-farm scheduling and is

water requirement data available to, and understood by,

farmers?
Section Three

86

? Do system spills often result from major laterals or

canals because of changes in on-farm demands?

? Will district distribution system facilities allow variable

flows in different parts of the system without adversely

affecting farmers' ability to take water through their

turnouts?

On-farm Irrigation Scheduling 

When to irrigate and how much water to apply are the two basic

questions each irrigator must answer during the irrigation

season. The answers will change throughout the irrigation

season and will depend on crop type, climate conditions, soil

types, application efficiencies, and previous water applications. 

Improving on-farm scheduling to better match actual crop

needs, thereby reducing over-application of water, may be a

very effective water management measure. 

On-farm irrigation scheduling can be based on the following

methods: 

• Crop and soil appearance and feel 

• Water availability (often a fixed frequency) 

• Theoretical ET calculations 

• Allowable soil moisture depletion 

The method chosen is usually a function of crop type and

sensitivity to the timing of water application, availability of

data, time constraints of the irrigator, and system-wide water

delivery flexibility. 

Scientifically-based irrigation management considers soil

characteristics, specifically the ability of soils to store irrigation

water. The water holding capacity that is available to plants

may be defined as the difference between the soil field capacity

and the wilting point. The field capacity can be thought of as a

full soil moisture reservoir, while the wilting point can be

thought of as an empty one. Soil moisture holding

characteristics vary by soil type. Characteristics are usually

determined in a laboratory, although approximate holding

capacities for various soil types are published. 

The amount of water that is available to the plants is termed the

available capacity. A common objective of irrigation
Catalog of Water Management Measures

87

Figure 7: Irrigation Scheduling Based on Soil Moisture Status

Source: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March 1995

scheduling is to maintain soil moisture above some minimum

refill point, such as 50 percent of the available capacity, and to

prevent soil moisture from decreasing to the wilting point, when

crop stress occurs. This active soil moisture reservoir, between

the field capacity and the refill point, is commonly referred to as

the allowable depletion. 

Figure 7 illustrates how these concepts apply to the scheduling

of irrigations. At the beginning of the growing season, the root

zone is assumed to be full (or soil moisture is at field capacity). 

Evapotranspiration from the crop steadily depletes the soil

moisture over time. When the soil moisture level reaches the

refill point, it is time to irrigate, and afterward, irrigation soil

moisture is again at field capacity. The irrigation interval is

the time between subsequent irrigations. 

The rates at which the soil moisture reservoir is depleted will

depend on seasonally varying ET rates specific for each crop. 

Precipitation events will also affect soil moisture conditions and

therefore, the irrigation interval. For these reasons, real-time

information on actual soil moisture conditions is essential for

effective irrigation scheduling. 
Section Three

88

Irrigation scheduling using ET estimates and soil moisture data

may offer excellent water management opportunities. Both of

these methods are more quantitatively-based and allow a better

estimate of true crop needs than simple visual inspection, and

will almost certainly result in meeting crop needs more

effectively than irrigating on a fixed frequency. However, the

difficulty in using these methods is that information must be

collected and made available continuously throughout the

irrigation season. 

Numerous examples of data collection and information

distribution programs have shown these programs to be feasible,

affordable, and to provide individual farmers with valuable

information to assist them in on-farm scheduling. Often these

programs involve cooperative data collection efforts between

Reclamation, the NRCS, other agencies, and the farmers

themselves. A variety of information distribution methods are

possible including dial-in services, radio announcements,

central literature postings, and communication with a water

conservation coordinator. 

To evaluate the relevance of on-farm scheduling to your district,

consider the following questions: 

? Do farmers have enough information about actual crop

requirements to determine when to irrigate and how

much to apply?

? Is the district system flexible enough to adequately meet

the farmers' needs in terms of amount and timing of

water deliveries?

? Based on the district's water budget, is there a

reasonable match between water deliveries and crop

water requirements on a district-wide basis?

? Is crop stress due to over- or under-irrigation frequent

in the district?

Conjunctive Use

Conjunctive use is the coordinated operation of surface water

and groundwater resources to meet water requirements. 

Conjunctive use may provide an opportunity to increase the

firm water supply to a district or to more efficiently use the

existing supply. In the former case, groundwater is used during
Catalog of Water Management Measures

89

periods when surface water supplies are less than demands. 

Such a situation may or may not result in a net depletion of the

groundwater resources, depending on how the aquifer is

recharged. 

When conjunctive use is used to better regulate supplies,

surface water available in excess of demands is intentionally

used to recharge the underlying aquifer. This is followed by

aquifer pumping when the surface supply is less than demands. 

In this case, the underlying aquifer effectively becomes a

regulatory storage vessel. Recharge systems include injection

wells, spreading basins, sump areas, and recharge pits

constructed in areas with high permeability. The feasibility of

a groundwater pumping system will be a function of the local

hydrogeology and specific water needs. A conjunctive use

system may have automated controls to coordinate the

groundwater component with flow conditions in the surface

system and with water demands. A conjunctive use program

may also be appropriate in situations where it is more efficient

to use a water supply nearer to the actual demands, as shown in

Figure 8. 
Section Three

90

Figure 8: Conjunctive Use Program

Which Takes Advantage of a Nearby Groundwater Supply

There are potential consequences associated with groundwater

pumping that should be considered by the district. 

Groundwater mining may occur from pumping in excess of

recharge rates, resulting in higher pumping costs, reduced water

availability, and aquifer depletion. Pumping may also affect

nearby surface water rights if the surface supplies are

hydrologically-connected to the groundwater. Groundwater

pumping may affect the yields of other groundwater wells and

salt-water intrusion may be a consequence in coastal areas. 

Questions to help you evaluate the relevance of this measure to

your district include: 

? Is suitable groundwater physically and legally available

in the district?

? Does the district experience periods of water shortages

and are shortages due to limitations on diverted supply

and/or distribution control?
Catalog of Water Management Measures

91

? Do problems with system losses, distribution control and

system scheduling make it difficult to deliver water to

specific areas in the district which might be served by

closer groundwater supplies?

? If regulatory or carryover storage would improve

distribution control, could groundwater storage offer the

same benefits? 

? Is the geology of the aquifer and quality of the recharge

water sufficient to make recharge and later use feasible?
Section Three

92

FACILITIES-RELATED WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES

This section discusses some water management improvements

achieved by constructing or modifying water delivery facilities. 

The topics include: 

1. Construction of Regulatory Reservoirs 

2. Lining of Canals and Reservoirs 

3. Development of Water Re-use Systems 

4. Installation of Remote or Automated Controls

Construction of Regulatory Reservoirs 

Distribution system regulatory reservoirs can play an important

role in helping the district match water deliveries to crop

requirements. This may be especially true in systems that

schedule deliveries on a rotation or fixed frequency. 

Regulatory reservoirs allow farmers to use their allocations at

their convenience, both in terms of time of irrigation and the

amount of water used. In addition to increasing water delivery

flexibility, regulatory reservoirs may be used to: 

• Reduce overall system spills 

• Capture storm water runoff 

• Capture tailwater runoff potentially available for re-use

• Help control desired groundwater levels to facilitate subirrigation 

Regulatory reservoirs should be strategically located in the

district service area. Depending on the operational problems

experienced, it may be most advantageous to locate a larger

reservoir at the highest point in the system so that it may be

used to regulate deliveries to all water users. If, on the other

hand, distribution problems are more localized, a smaller

reservoir constructed near the problem area might be in order. 

The best indication of a need for additional regulation of water

supply is a mismatch between water supply and demand. The

demand for water may exceed supply because of a limitation in

the available physical supply or because of bottlenecks in the
Catalog of Water Management Measures

93

Figure 9: A Possible Demand and Supply Relationship and the

Potential Benefit in Flexibility From Regulatory Storage

conveyance facilities. The water supply may exceed demand at

some times but be insufficient at others. In many systems,

distribution control may be adequate overall but the speed at

which a district can modulate supply to a particular area is

inadequate to avoid shortages or system spills. Figure 9 shows

a typical demand and supply relationship and the potential

benefit in management flexibility and water conservation

associated with regulatory storage. 

The following questions will help the district evaluate relevance

of this measure: 

? Does your district obtain its water at a constant or

variable rate? How well do the rates match water

demand?

? Does your district already have regulatory reservoirs in

its supply or distribution system that may be used to

facilitate water delivery scheduling?

? Is there a mismatch between water delivery rates and

irrigation water demand on either a district-wide basis

or in specific sub-areas?

? Are there problems meeting demands in some areas of

your district due to supply limitations or physical

constraints of the conveyance facilities?
Section Three

94

? Do limitations on response time by district water

managers result in demand shortages or over-deliveries?

Lining of Canals and Reservoirs

Canals, laterals and reservoirs may experience significant water

losses due to seepage or evaporation. Installation of reservoir

and canal linings or pipelines are effective methods to reduce

these conveyance and storage losses. In addition to control of

seepage and evaporation, lining and piping may provide the

additional benefits of erosion control, reduced maintenance,

increased safety, and system pressurization (piping only). 

Factors affecting seepage or evaporative losses from

conveyance and reservoir systems include: 

• Bottom soils 

• Capillary forces and gravity 

• Silt deposition from operation 

• Water depth and surface area 

• Wetted area 

• Water velocity 

• Depth to groundwater 

• Ground slope 

Losses due to seepage from unlined canals may range from

10 percent to more than 50 percent. Lining activities

commonly reduce losses to less than 10 percent, although the

expected amount of water savings will depend on site

characteristics and the type of lining used. A similar reduction

in seepage losses can be achieved through piping with the

additional benefit of reducing evaporative losses and possibly

pressurizing the system. 

Significant seepage losses within the district may be indicated

by the overall district water budget. Other general indications

of seepage losses include phreatophyte growth adjacent to

canals or reservoirs, water logging or ponding on adjacent

lands, visible seepage faces on canal or reservoir embankments,

or return flow problems. While the district water budget may

be used to develop a quantitative estimate of seepage losses, the
Catalog of Water Management Measures

95

latter indicators will provide a general idea of specific locations

where seepage may be occurring. 

Methods and materials used for canal lining include exposed

linings (concrete, asphalt, geosynthetic), buried membranes

(geosynthetic), earth linings (clay, soil sealants), and

miscellaneous materials such as cast-in-place pipe. Methods

and materials used for reservoir lining include earth

compaction, earth blankets, bentonite, cement, chemical

additives, and flexible membranes. 

Piping may be accomplished using a variety of materials,

including reinforced concrete, cast in place concrete, corrugated

metal, PVC, and other synthetics. Selection of materials for

both lining and piping requires site-specific consideration of

material availability, hydraulic requirements, and costs. 

There are many factors that influence the type of lining or

pipeline chosen, and no single lining type can be recommended

to satisfy all situations. Numerous publications by

Reclamation and others provide detailed information

concerning material selection and design. These publications

are listed in the Appendix. 

Questions to consider to evaluate relevance of this measure

include: 

? Does your district water budget indicate significant

(greater than 10 percent) losses in the conveyance

system?

? Do lands adjacent to canals have excess vegetation or are

they heavily vegetated with water loving plants? 

? Do lands adjacent to canals exhibit problems with water

logging as evidenced by water ponding, phreatophyte

growth, and salt leaching in soils?
Section Three

96

Figure 10: Irrigation Water Reuse Systems to Capture Spills and Drainage

Water Reuse Systems

Water reuse systems may be an effective technique for

improving irrigation system efficiencies and water management

within a district. In addition to reducing the required diversion

amount and increasing delivery flexibility, reuse systems may

provide benefits in the areas of flood protection, erosion control,

and water quality of receiving waters. It may also be possible

to locate and schedule crop irrigation to effectively take

advantage of water reuse opportunities. 

The purpose of reuse systems is to capture system spills,

seepage, and drainage waters for immediate or later use. In the

case of operational spills, a storage facility is usually required to

hold water until demand increases once again. In contrast, it

may be possible to use captured drainage water on a more

immediate basis, and a storage reservoir may not be required. 

Reuse of water potentially reduces the required amount of

diversion into the overall system. 

As shown in Figure 10, a reuse system will include a capture

mechanism (a drainage canal or a diversion facility and

reservoir) and the necessary pumping equipment and pipeline to

deliver water from the capture location back into the application

system. In some instances, it may be possible to use gravity for

the delivery of the collected spills or drainage water. 

In a system aimed at reuse of operational spills, it may be most

efficient to capture spills at several locations in the conveyance
Catalog of Water Management Measures

97

system. Alternatively, the captured spills could be conveyed to

a central storage location. The storage capacity required would

typically depend on the flow rate in the service canal and the

response time to changes in water demand. 

Capture and reuse of operational spills as a conservation

measure may be closely related to use of regulatory storage in

the conveyance system. The use of regulatory reservoirs at

higher points in the system may greatly improve the district's

ability to respond to changing water demands and thus,

substantially reduce operational spills. It may also be more

efficient to implement both measures and use the regulatory

reservoirs for storage of pumped spill water. 

In addition to capturing spilled water, capture and reuse of

drainage water may be advantageous at more than one location

in the system. Several drainage canals can be constructed at

key locations in the service area to capture seepage from

specific areas that exhibit the most significant drainage

problems. This collected water is then conveyed to a central

location. It may be possible to use common storage reservoirs

for both captured spills and drainage waters. 

To evaluate the relevance of these management measures, you

should consider the following questions for your district: 

? Does your district regularly experience operational

spills?

? Are spills frequent and do they involve significant

amounts of water? 

? Do system spills or irrigation drainage cause problems

downstream from erosion, flooding, water logging, or

water quality?

? Would a reuse system provide additional flexibility to

your district in the amounts and timing of water

deliveries?

? Could the district reduce its overall diversion through

implementation of a reuse program?
Section Three

98

Installation of Remote or Automated Controls

Advances in electronic sensing and automatic control

equipment can improve the way water is managed and

controlled. Automation can provide water managers instant

information about flows and gate openings and give them the

ability to change gate settings and flows without visiting the

site. Benefits of automation can include more precise control of

flows, more reliable service to irrigators, less waste through

unnecessary spills, and reduced labor.

The following questions will help the district evaluate relevance

of this measure:

? Could the district reduce long travel times required for

operators to take flow measurements or adjust control

gate settings?

? Do irrigators frequently complain about the reliability of

service–deliveries are not on time or in the amount

requested?

? Are significant quantities of water wasted because the

district cannot quickly adjust diversions to respond to

changing demands?
Assembling a Water Management Plan

99

SECTION FOUR – ASSEMBLING A WATER MANAGEMENT

PLAN

This section of the Guidebook will help you prepare a document describing your water

management action plan. It will: 

L Describe the reasons for preparing a plan document

L Suggest how the document should be organized

L Present a sample water management plan
Assembling a Water Management Plan

100

WHY DO YOU NEED A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DOCUMENT?

There are many good reasons to prepare a document or report

describing your water management plan, but the basic reason is

so you can explain your plan to other people. Some of the other

people who will need to understand your water management

plan include: 

• Members of the district Board of Directors who will need to

approve the plan 

• Members of the district staff who will need to implement

the plan 

• District water users who will want to know how the plan

might affect them 

• Agencies and lenders from whom the district might be

seeking financing assistance 

• Other local and regional water organizations with whom the

district wishes to establish more cooperation 

• Agencies from whom the district seeks permits or approvals

• Agencies and groups who may be unaware of the district's

efforts to improve water management 

For some of these people, the plan will be mainly an

information document. But for others, the plan may be a "sales

pitch" used to convince them of the wisdom of cooperating with

the district, lending money to the district, etc. Especially in this

latter case, the plan document will need to be prepared in a

professional way, well-organized and complete, with easy to

read text, tables, and figures. 

Beyond being a description of what you want to do, putting

your plan in writing means that you are making a commitment

to do something. It puts the district on record as moving ahead

to solve problems in a progressive way. This can be very

important in dealing with potential future threats to district

water rights and supplies from competing uses. 

You will probably also find that the process of writing your plan

down will help you see where it is deficient and could be

improved. 
Assembling a Water Management Plan

101

SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR THE PLAN DOCUMENT 

Your water management plan document can be thought of as a

compilation and synthesis of the information developed in

Phases 1 through 5 of the planning process. A suggested outline

for the plan document is provided below. Each outline item

might be constructed as a separate chapter or section in your

management plan. 

Management Plan Document – Suggested Outline 

I. Description of District 

II. Inventory of Water Resources 

III. District Water Budget 

IV. Legal, Institutional, and Environmental Considerations

V. Existing Water Management Measures and Programs

VI. Issues and Goals 

VII. Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Water

Management Measures

A. Identification of Candidate Water Management

Measures

B. Evaluation of Candidate Water Management

Measures

VIII. Adopted Plan Elements 

A. Selected Measures

B. Projected Results 

C. Implementation Schedule and Budget 

D. Monitoring Program 

IX. Environmental Review

The objective of Item I (Description of the District) of the

plan document is to provide sufficient background information
Assembling a Water Management Plan

102

on district organization, facilities, and operations so that your

reader can understand the opportunities and constraints that

exist for water management improvements in the district. This

is especially important if your plan document is going to be read

by people who are not familiar with the district, such as bankers

or lending agencies. 

It may not be necessary to write a lot of prose for this part of the

document. Some of the information can be conveniently

displayed in tabular form. You may also be able to incorporate

existing materials, such as policies and organizational charts. 

Often, a simple paragraph will suffice. 

A district map is also a good idea for an easy-to-read

management plan document. The map should show facilities,

canals, laterals, diversion points, measurement locations,

pumping locations, seepage, drains and spill locations, and any

identified problem areas. 

In addition to those items, a comprehensive district description

would include the following: 

• District enabling legislation (formation authority) and

governance 

• Voting and taxing authorities 

• Organizational structure and personnel 

• Historical irrigated acreage and trends 

• Historical population and trends 

In summary, the plan should present a clear understanding of

the district’s particular circumstances within the context of its

local setting (history, location, topography, climate,

demographics, description of the distribution system, crops,

soils, agricultural practices, etc.). The information contained

here, along with information in Items II, III, and IV, provide the

means for making a working assessment of the district’s

relevant issues.

Item II (Inventory of Water Resources) is documentation of

the water resources inventory that you assembled in Step 1 of

the planning process. Much of this information can be

displayed in tables or graphs. On the district map, you should

also indicate which portions of the delivery systems are unlined,

which are lined, and which are piped. 
Assembling a Water Management Plan

103

Item III (District Water Budget) is your district water budget. 

The water budget should clearly depict where the district gets

its water and how water is used and lost throughout the project. 

The budget should also provide sufficient information to

identify potential water overuse, supply deficiencies, or system

capacity problems. A suggested water budget format was

provided in Section Two of this Guidebook. You may find that

pie charts or other graphical display methods help you visualize

the various components of district inflows and outflows. 

Item IV (Legal, Institutional, and Environmental

Considerations) is a discussion of any legal, institutional,

and/or environmental considerations that place specific

requirements or prohibitions on the district. Also, any

environmental considerations that may impact the district’s

decision whether to implement specific water management

activities or measures should be discussed as well.

Item V (Existing Water Management Measures and

Programs) is a description of the district’s current water

management practices and programs. The plan should fully

describe the water management programs currently being

pursued by the district. It should suggest relative effectiveness

of these programs. It could also discuss any activities that have

been tried and later abandoned explaining the reasons for

abandoning the activities.

Item VI (Issues and Goals) should be a brief but complete

description of the apparent water management issues identified

in Step 3 of the planning process. If any of the fundamental

measures are not part of the current water management

program, the lack of these measures should be included in the

list of issues. Note that the conditions generating these issues

should have been discussed in the first five sections of the plan. 

Where necessary, the issues should be prioritized so that the

district and the reader can focus on the issues of greatest

importance. Finally, the plan should also include your water

management goal statements for each of the issues that the plan

indicates are of concern to the district. 
Assembling a Water Management Plan

104

Item VII (Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Water

Management Measures) should be a discussion of the

evaluation you have made of candidate water management

measures. The first part of this section should list all of the

candidate measures (measures described in Section 3 of the

Guidebook plus others not listed) that you consider could have

potential to resolve each of the goals described above.

The second part of this section should contain a comparative

evaluation of the candidate measures. The strengths and

weaknesses of each candidate measure should be discussed in

sufficient detail to support a decision whether to adopt each

measure as part of the district’s water management program. It

would be appropriate to include a summary of the evaluation

process and tabulations of any quantitative data analyses you

conducted. In addition to the technical and financial

evaluations, you may want to include a discussion of the legal,

institutional, and environmental concerns that may be

associated with the measures under consideration.

Item VIII (Adopted Plan Elements) should be a description of

the elements (existing and new) that finally make up the water

management plan you have adopted. The programs and

measures that make up the plan should be described in detail, as

should the expected effects and implications of those programs

and measures. You should describe as clearly as possible how

those measures will help you achieve your goals. 

You should present a detailed schedule for implementing the

plan. The schedule should be reasonable and achievable

considering resources available to the District. There should

also be a description of the budget and financing that will be

required. This discussion should identify all resources (funds,

staff, equipment, etc.) that would be required to implement the

plan. 

Finally, this section should discuss how implementation

progress will be monitored and results evaluated. It should also

describe the process for revising the district’s water

management plan based upon a periodic evaluation of program

results.

Item IX (Environmental Review) identifies and evaluates the

environmental effects (both positive and negative) of

implementing the plan. It should also discuss the environmental

compliance activities that will be required to implement specific

elements of the plan. You may want to consult with

Reclamation’s local Water Conservation Coordinator for

direction as this section is developed.
Assembling a Water Management Plan

105

In most cases, it should be possible to incorporate into the plan

document the tables and descriptions developed earlier in the

planning process. It is also possible that some parts of the plan

document can be created from available district documents and

data summaries. We encourage you to use such resources in

order to reduce the amount of effort required to complete your

plan document. 

An Example Water Management Plan for the hypothetical

Springfield Irrigation District follows. This example is

somewhat abbreviated for space reasons, but it should provide a

useful example for you to follow in creating your own planning

document. 
Assembling a Water Management Plan

106
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-1

Figure 1: Springfield Irrigation District Location Map

SPRINGFIELD IRRIGATION DISTRICT

 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

DISTRICT DESCRIPTION

Springfield Irrigation District is a 10,000-acre irrigation district established in 1902. 

It diverts via the Springfield Canal below Spring Mountain Reservoir on the South

Fork River (Figure 1). 

The district is located in a semi-arid western climate, with a growing season

adequate for forage, cereals, and some fruits and vegetables. The terrain is gently

sloping and the soils in the district are loamy with some stony, shallow sections. 

Springfield currently has 55 farms. Crops grown in the district are primarily alfalfa

(4,000 acres), grass hay (5,000 acres) and corn (1,000 acres). Irrigation methods

are mostly flood and contour ditch with some siphon tubes for row crops. 

The Springfield Canal and its laterals are unlined. There are 11 miles of laterals, 9

miles of main canal and 16 miles of open drains. The canal was originally

constructed in 1902, but there have been several improvements and some

realignment since then. The canal headworks consist of a concrete wall with two

radial gates, installed in 1957. Most of the district's headgates, valves, checks,

and drop structures are at least 30 years old. 

The Springfield Canal is usually run full to ensure deliveries to farmers at the lower

end of the district. There are a few tailwater ponds and drainage ditches to

facilitate reuse. Seepage from the canal has resulted in establishment of wetlands

along the canal. 

The district has a Board of Directors elected by the shareholders. The

three-member board is made up of district farmers, each serving 3-year terms. 

The district staff includes a District Manager, a secretary, and two ditch riders. 

District revenues are based on per-acre assessments. Every farmer in the district

pays assessments based on the number of acres he or she owns. The district
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-2

uses these assessments to fund operations and capital improvements. 

Springfield has both a natural flow water right and a supplemental supply contract

with Reclamation for storage water in Spring Mountain Reservoir. Storage water

releases are requested by Springfield through an ordering process established

between the district and Reclamation. 

INVENTORY OF WATER RESOURCES

Springfield has a 1902 natural flow water right on the South Fork for 180 cfs. 

Streamflows in the South Fork are highly dependent on the previous winter's

snowpack and Springfield's water right rarely yields sufficient water for irrigation in

late-season months. In 1956, Springfield contracted with Reclamation for 16,000

acre-feet of supplemental supply from Spring Mountain Reservoir. Average

monthly diversions of natural flow and storage water by the district are shown in

Table 1. The district does not have any groundwater supplies. 

Table 1

Springfield Irrigation District

Average Monthly Storage and Natural Flow Diversions

Natural Flow, af Storage Flow, af Total, af 

April 6,427 0 6,427

May 11,068 0 11,068 

June 10,711 0 10,711 

July 6,149 4,919 11,068 

August 664 5,977 6,641 

September 166 3,154 3,320 

October 43 1,242 1,285 

Total 35,227 15,293 50,520 

The water quality of Springfield's sources is high but its return flows and drainage

have excessive sediment and nutrients, especially in the early season. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-3

WATER BUDGET

 A district water budget was developed to help identify water supply and timing

problems and opportunities. Diversion, loss, and delivery data are regularly

submitted to Reclamation, though only diversion data are actually measured (Table

2). Without actual measurements, the loss data submitted have been based on a

combination of estimates of farm deliveries and a report of transportation losses

done by Reclamation and the district about 25 years ago. Delivery data have

traditionally been estimated by ditch riders and farmers, based on numbers of

applications and judgment. Though operational spills are known to occur, there

have been no measurements or estimates made.

Table 2

Springfield Irrigation District

Water Data Submitted to Reclamation

1965-1995 Average

Net

Supply, 

af* 

Operational

Spills, 

af 

Transportation

Losses, 

af 

Delivered

to Farms,

af 

Acre-feet

per Acre 

April 6,427 0 1,607 4,820 0.48 

May 11,068 0 2,214 8,854 0.89 

June 10,711 0 1,607 9,104 0.91 

July 11,068 0 1,328 9,740 0.97 

August 6,641 0 797 5,844 0.58 

September 3,320 0 398 2,922 0.29 

October 1,285 0 154 1,131 0.11 

Total 50,520 0 8,105 42,415 4.00 

* Combines project water and nonproject water

Since the district's loss and delivery data are not verifiable for this water budget, an

approach was taken to rely more heavily on the measured data: the main canal

diversions. These diversions were compared to crop water requirements obtained

from the county extension agent. Calculations of crop requirements for Springfield

Irrigation District are shown in Table 3. Overall, the average annual crop water

requirement for the district is approximately 18,500 acre-feet. The monthly

distribution of crop requirements is illustrated in Figure 2. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-4

Figure 2: District-wide Average Monthly Crop Requirements

Table 3

Springfield Irrigation District

Average Monthly Crop Water Requirements

Corn Alfalfa Grass

Acres 1,000 4,000 5,000

Crop Rqmt, in Crop Rqmt, in Crop Rqmt, in Total Crop Rqmt, af

April 0.0 0.0 1.3 542

May 0.6 3.1 2.6 2,144 

June 2.2 4.7 3.7 3,309 

July 6.1 7.1 5.9 5,318 

August 5.9 5.9 5.0 4,518 

September 1.5 3.0 2.7 2,249 

October 0.0 0.2 0.7 377 

Total 16.3 24.0 21.8 18,458 

Using the crop requirements, the canal diversion data and the estimated

transportation losses, overall farm efficiency was calculated (farm efficiency = crop

requirement÷delivery). These calculations gave an overall, annual farm efficiency

of 44 percent (Table 4). If the transportation loss values are accurate, then the

overall farm efficiency fluctuates from 11 to 77 percent during the irrigation season

(Figure 3). This enormous range in farm efficiency suggests an unlikely situation,

where farms are literally flooded in spring. It is more likely that the transportation

loss value is incorrect and that there are other types of losses, like operational

spills, taking place, especially early in the season. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-5

Figure 3: Overall District-wide Farm Efficiency

Table 4

Springfield Irrigation District

Average Monthly Farm Efficiency Calculation

Average Canal

Diversion, af 

Delivered to

Farms, af 

Total Crop

Requirement, af Farm Efficiency

April 6,427 4,820 542 0.11 

May 11,068 8,854 2,144 0.24 

June 10,711 9,104 3,309 0.36 

July 11,068 9,740 5,318 0.55 

August 6,641 5,844 4,518 0.77 

September 3,320 2,922 2,249 0.77 

October 1,285 1,131 377 0.33 

Total 50,520 42,415 18,458 0.44 

To better understand the system losses, an overall district-wide efficiency, which

reflects all losses to seepage, spills and other kinds of waste, was calculated

(overall efficiency = crop requirement÷canal diversion). Annually, for Springfield,

the average overall efficiency value is 37percent (Table 5). Spring efficiencies are

as low as 8 percent, suggesting that there are substantial early-season losses or

waste. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-6

Table 5

Springfield Irrigation District

Overall Efficiency Calculation

Canal Diversion, 

af 

Total Crop

Requirement, 

af 

Overall

Efficiency

April 6,427 542 0.08 

May 11,068 2,144 0.19

June 10,711 3,309 0.31

July 11,068 5,318 0.48

August 6,641 4,518 0.68 

September 3,320 2,249 0.68

October 1,285 377 0.29

Total 50,520 18,458 0.37

Finally, district-wide diversion requirements were calculated to get a picture of the

match between diversion requirements and actual diversions (Table 6 and Figure

4).

Table 6

Springfield Irrigation District

Average Monthly Diversion Requirement

Total Crop

Requirement, af 

Diversion

Requirement, af* 

April 542 1,083 

May 2,144 4,288 

June 3,309 6,618 

July 5,318 10,637 

August 4,518 9,037 

September 2,249 4,498 

October 377 753 

Total 18,458 36,915 

*Assumes 50% overall efficiency

These estimates are based on an assumption that 200 percent of the crop water
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-7

Figure 4 District-wide Diversions and Diversion Requirements

requirement must be diverted to fulfill the entire district's water requirement. This

assumption was based on efficiency tables in the state's irrigation guide. For soils,

slopes and irrigation methods common to Springfield, an overall irrigation efficiency

of 50 percent is reasonable. 

The following conclusions were made from the water budget analysis: 

• Overall, average district-wide efficiency is 0.37 percent

• Approximately 32,000 acre-feet of diversion goes unused by crops in an

average year 

• Historical farm delivery estimates are probably incorrect 

• The district is diverting too much water in the early season. This is likely the

result of habit and conservatism on the part of both the district and its

irrigators 

• Early-season excess natural flow diversions may be competing with junior

storage rights at Spring Mountain Reservoir, possibly jeopardizing

late-season storage supplies 

• Wetlands and drainage problems are likely evidence of excessive losses and

spills in the early season 

• The water budget needs to be revisited and revised as better data becomes

available 

EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND PROGRAMS
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-8

Springfield does not have formal water management measures and programs. 

The district has historically operated by diverting to its capacity when natural flow

water was available under its water right. Each season, as Springfield runs out of

natural flow water, it begins ordering storage water from Reclamation. The district

has made water conservation materials available to its farmers whenever they are

supplied by the county, state, Reclamation, or NRCS. Some of the district farmers

have been able to convert to using gated pipe. 

LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Springfield’s water rights are established by state law and by contract with

Reclamation. There are no unusual requirements that would impact the water

supply. 

Springfield’s policies govern the operation of the project. It has been noted that

farmers are allowed to partially control water deliveries to their farms. As a result,

substantial spills have been noted when farmers shut off water to their laterals

without making sufficient arrangements for another farmer to use the water or for

main canal diversions to be reduced.

There are two main environmental concerns. The quality of district drainage and

return flows impacts the downstream quality of water. This can have impacts on

both the natural habitat and M&I users downstream. Wetlands have been created

by seepage from Springfield’s canals. Some of these wetlands are important

migratory bird habitat.

ISSUES AND GOALS

The water budget analysis helped to identify several key issues. First, there is a

significant mismatch between the timing of crop irrigation requirements and

diversions by the Springfield Canal. Second, there are substantial, unexplained

losses in the early season, and third, there is insufficient data to clearly determine

where and how losses are occurring. The water budget analysis did reveal,

however, that on an annual basis there is probably enough water to meet the

district's irrigation demands. 

In addition to the water budget analysis, extensive discussions were held with

district irrigators and community representatives to determine the key issues the

district, its farmers, and its neighbors were facing. These discussions identified

many issues. Through an iterative process of examination and re-examination, it

became apparent that some of the issues were really sub-issues of more basic

underlying issues. An examination of the issues allowed the district to prioritize the

identified issues. Table 7 lists the issues identified by the district.
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-9

Table 7

Springfield Irrigation District

Prioritized Issues

Priority Issue Comments

1 Farm deliveries and operational spills are not measured:

 A. Farmers cannot match deliveries to crop requirements

 B. Water budget contains significant inaccuracies

 C. District cannot bill for water used

Water cannot be managed and used

efficiently without adequate

measurement.

2 Excessive early-season diversions reduce availability of lateseason supplies:

 A. Water supply is insufficient in late-season months

 B. Farm efficiencies are low in early season

 C. Overall efficiency is low in early season

 D. Seasonal diversions do not match seasonal crop use

 E. Early-season diversions impact junior storage rights

 F. Return flows have excessive sediment and nutrients

 G. Low, late-season reservoir levels detract from recreation

Poor early-season efficiencies need to

be corrected in order to have adequate

late-season water supplies. Other

efforts are meaningless without

adequate late-season supplies.

3 Per-acre assessments encourage water waste and produce

inequitable water costs between efficient and inefficient users.

Financial incentives are necessary to

encourage efficient water use.

4 Canal spills often occur when farmers shut off their laterals. This needs to be addressed to reduce

unnecessary water waste.

5 Deliveries to the lower end of the district are frequently

insufficient when compared to the upper end.

This may be caused by capacity

problems or excessive use by some

farmers.

6 State wants increased flows in river below district’s diversion. This is a serious concern but may be

addressed by resolution of Issue #2

7 Quality of drainage and return flows concern downstream M&I

users.

Resolution of Issue #2 could help

resolve this issue.

8 Portions of canal have excessive seepage losses. Resolution could be complex and

lengthy.

9 Seepage supports wetlands that provide migratory bird habitat. This is recognized as a possible

constraint on other activities.

Once the basic issues were understood, the district defined its goals for the water

management plan. The district choose to focus its attention on the top seven

issues. Again, development of the district's goals was an iterative process,

requiring discussions with irrigators and the community. Through this iterative

process, it became apparent that these problems and symptoms were related to

how the district managed water deliveries and how the district worked with other

South Fork basin water users. Springfield's board of directors ultimately identified

the goals shown in Table 8. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-10

Table 8

Springfield Irrigation District

Water Management Goals

Priority Issue Goal

1 Farm deliveries and operation spills are not

measured.

All farm deliveries and operational spills greater

than 0.25 acre-foot will be measured within 3 years.

2 Early-season diversions are excessive and lateseason shortages exist.Beginning next irrigation season, match diversions

to actual crop requirements so that unneeded

natural flows can be stored in the reservoir.

3 Per-acre assessments encourage water waste and

produce inequitable water costs between efficient

and inefficient users.

In 3 years, water bills will include a component

based upon water use.

4 Canal spills often occur when farmers shut off their

laterals.

Delivery flows will not be changed without advance

approval of the district.

5 Deliveries to the lower end of the district are

frequently insufficient when compared to the upper

end.

Within 1 year, the district will have a plan for

equitably distributing water between the upper and

lower ends of the district.

6 The State wants increased flows in river below

district’s diversion.

Provide 20 percent of anticipated diversion

reduction as a in-stream flow below the diversion. 

The remainder will be stored for later release.

7 Quality of drainage and return flows concern

downstream M&I users.

Achievement of the above goals should resolve this

issue.

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE WATER MANAGEMENT

MEASURES

There are numerous water management measures that accomplish a wide range

of goals. However, only a limited few have the capacity to accomplish the specific

goals stated above. Table 9 shows those candidate measures that have the

capacity to help achieve the stated goals. In identifying candidate measures,

special attention was given to the serious mismatch between efficiencies achieved

in the early-season and late season. We concluded that major system

improvements or modifications other than improved water measurement would not

resolve the issue. Rather, attention needed to be directed to those management

activities that would reduce early season diversions and make additional water

available later in the season. Diversions, especially early-season diversions, must

be based upon actual needs rather than available supply as has been the case in

the past.

Comparison of candidate water management measures are listed in Tables 10 and

11. Measures were evaluated from both a technical standpoint and a legal,

institutional, and environmental standpoint. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-11

Table 9

Springfield Irrigation District

Candidate Water Management Measures

Priority Goal Candidate Measures

1 All farm deliveries and operational spills greater

than 0.25 acre-foot will be measured within 3

years.

Install measuring devices at all farm turnouts and

spills, one-third each year.

2 Beginning next irrigation season, match diversions

to actual crop requirements so that unneeded

natural flows can be stored in the reservoir.

A. Change policy to require 2-day advance

ordering of water.

B. Implement field-by-field irrigation scheduling

C. Publish daily crop consumptive use information

D. Educate farmers on proper irrigation techniques

E. Install sprinkler systems

F. Install reuse collector systems

3 In 3 years, water bills will include a component

based upon water use.

A. Measure deliveries to all farm turnouts

B. Develop and institute an incentive pricing rate

structure

C. Implement computerized water billing

D. Educate farmers on implications of incentive

pricing

4 Delivery flows will not be changed without advance

approval of the district.

A. Ditchriders make all delivery flow changes

B. Farmers obtain prior approval to make flow

changes with penalty for failure to comply

5 Within one year, the district will have a plan for

equitably distributing water between the upper and

lower ends of the district.

Obtain technical assistance to determine reason(s)

for inequitable distribution of water and then

develop plan.

6 Provide 20 percent of anticipated diversion

reduction as a in-stream flow below the diversion. 

The remainder will be stored for later release.

Negotiate an agreement with State and

Reclamation describing how in-stream flows would

be determined and managed.

Technical Evaluation

The technical evaluation examined the measures from a feasibility and cost

standpoint. Estimates of water supply and cost effects of 12 potential water

management measures were made with assistance from Reclamation, NRCS, and

extension service personnel. Irrigation districts that have implemented some of the

measures were also contacted to collect data on effects. Results of the

investigations are summarized in Table 10. In the table, water supply "amount,"

"efficiency," and "equity" refer to the effects of the measure on district supplies,

efficiency of water use, and fairness of water service within the district,

respectively. "No change" indicates that the measure is not likely to have an effect

in that category. A plus sign indicates an increase, a negative sign means a 

decrease, and a question mark indicates that the effect has not been predicted or

is unclear. Annualized costs include both construction, operation, and

maintenance costs. 

Measures that were evaluated in detail include water measurement, incentive

pricing, various policy changes, irrigation scheduling, and education. Incentive

pricing had very low construction costs but relatively high operating costs. In the

short-term, incentive pricing was not expected to increase overall water supply but
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-12

it was expected to cause a redistribution of existing supplies away from inefficient

water users to more efficient water users. In the long-term, it was expected to

increase overall district efficiency. An incentive pricing system could also provide

some additional funds to establish a revolving loan fund. The loan fund could help

finance on-farm efficiency improvements such as conversion to sprinkler or drip

irrigation.

Irrigation scheduling had relatively low initial costs and relatively high operating

costs. The measure was not expected to increase overall supplies for the district. 

Over the long-term, it was expected to increase crop quality and quantity and

provide more flexibility to district farmers. 

As an alternative to field-by-field irrigation scheduling, the district considered

publishing daily crop consumptive use data. This would give district farmers more

information to improve the way they schedule irrigations and order water. An

aggressive education program would be required to educate the farmers in the

proper use of the published data.

Education programs were the least expensive measures investigated. They would

have little short-term effect on water supply or water use efficiency. Effects would

be seen over the long-term, as district irrigators adopted the suggested practices

and facilities. 

Legal, Institutional, and Environmental Evaluation

Discussions were also held with Springfield's attorneys, Reclamation personnel,

the State engineer's office, and the State environmental office to assess potential

legal, institutional, and environmental issues that might be associated with the

water management measures. 

Results of those investigations are summarized in Table 11. Again, the measures

investigated in detail include water measurement, incentive pricing, irrigation

scheduling, policy changes, and education programs. Water measurement is

unlikely to have any federal or state issues associated with it. There could be

some local resistance on the part of district farmers because it represents a

change in long-standing practices. It will also require additional training for

ditchriders and changes in operating practices. Typically, a reaction to

implementation of water measurement is a small reduction of water applied. This

could result in some reduced drainage. Impacts to wetlands would probably be

insignificant.
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-13

Table 10

Candidate Water Management Measures

Technical Evaluation

Candidate

Measures

Issues

Addressed

Effects

Water Supply

Annualized

Cost

Amount Efficiency Equity $/yr

Water Measurement 1,2,3,7 no change + + 25,0001

Ordering Policy 2,7 match div. 

to demand

+ + 5,000

Irrigation Scheduling 2,7 match div. 

to demand

+ + 20,000

Publish Crop Use

Data 2,7

match div. 

to demand + + 1,000

Sprinkler Installation 2,7 reduce

demand

+ ? 194,000 

Reuse Systems 2,7 reduce

demand

+ ? 225,000 

Incentive Pricing and

computer billing

3,7 reduce

demand

+ + 10,000

Ditchriders change

flows 4,7 no change + + 2,000

Farmers change

flows 4 no change + - -

Study water

distribution equity 5,7 no change ? + 20,000

In-stream flow

agreement 6 no change ? ? ?

Education 2,3,7 may reduce

demand

+ + 1,200

1First 3 years then 2,000 per year thereafter.

Incentive pricing was considered unlikely to have federal or local issues associated

with it, but there may be some restrictions under state law that limit Springfield's

flexibility to implement the measure. Incentive pricing, if it encourages water use

efficiency, was expected to reduce drainage. Impacts to wetlands supported by

the main canal are unknown. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-14

Irrigation scheduling was not expected to have federal, state or local implications,

though there may be effects to the wetlands supported by the main canal. Again,

drainage from the district was expected to decrease with irrigation scheduling. 

Education programs were not expected to have legal or institutional issues

associated with them. 

ADOPTED PLAN ELEMENTS

Selected Measures

Measures that were eliminated without detailed investigation were those that

involved expensive construction projects. Measures that were selected to be

examined in detail were those that helped to achieve the goals of the district

without being too costly. 

Measures considered too costly at this time included field-by-field irrigation

scheduling, sprinkler system installation, and reuse systems.

The final water management plan has three programs: a water measurement and

billing program, an irrigation scheduling program, and an education program. In

addition, the plan will include several policy changes and studies. After evaluation,

these three programs were considered as having the most potential, within

reasonable costs, to achieving Springfield's goals of improving the district's water

delivery service and of providing leadership in the South Fork basin. 

Table 11

Candidate Water Management Measures

Legal, Institutional, and Environmental Evaluation

Alternatives

Issues

Institutional Legal Environmental

Federal State Local

Water

Rights Drainage Wetlands

Water

Measurement none none none none - ?

Ordering Policy none none none none - ?

Irrigation

Scheduling none none none none - ?

Publish Crop Data none none none none - ?

Sprinkler

Installation none none none none - ?

Reuse Systems none none none none - ?

Incentive Pricing none possible none none - ?
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Table 11

Candidate Water Management Measures

Legal, Institutional, and Environmental Evaluation

Example Plan-15

Ditchriders

Change Flows none none none none - ?

Farmers Change

Flows none none none none - ?

Study Water

Distribution

Equity none none none none - ?

In-stream Flow

Agreement possible possible none possible ? ?

Education none none none none ? ?

Water Measurement and Billing Program

The measurement portion of the program will include installation of 16 flumes and

weirs per year to measure flows at turnouts. All turnouts are expected to be

measured by the end of the third year. The program also includes adding eight

staff gauges at drains and wasteways to help identify locations and amounts of

losses, spills, and other waste. During the time that measuring devices are being

installed, a computer accounting system will be implemented. An incentive pricing

rate structure will be developed and ready for implementation at the beginning of

the fourth year.

Irrigation Scheduling Program

The irrigation scheduling program can be implemented with technical assistance

from the county extension agent. She has agreed to calculate and transmit daily

evapotranspiration and effective precipitation data to the local newspaper each

day. With the ability of district farmers to predict when irrigation events are

required, new policies will require farmers to order water 2 days in advance of

need. This will allow Springfield to more accurately schedule diversions from the

South Fork. Reclamation has committed to working with Springfield to better

conserve springtime flows for recreation and late season irrigation use.

Education Program

The education program will focus on training farmers in the proper techniques of

irrigation scheduling. It will also prepare farmers for implementation of incentive

pricing. Other activities will include mobile demonstration projects. The

demonstration projects will include movable surge valves and gated pipes. 

Other Program Activities

Springfield will issue new operational policies that require farmers to obtain
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-16

permission from the district before making any changes in delivery flows. If the

change in policy does not prove satisfactory, the district is prepared to require that

all flow changes be made by ditch riders. The district will begin to collect data to

define the distribution inequities between the upper and lower ends of the district. 

The district expects that some early-season natural flows may be available once

the water management plan is implemented. The district will begin discussions

with the State and Reclamation to determine an acceptable minimum in-stream

flow below the district’s diversion on South Fork.

Projected Results

Improved water measurement is expected to improve overall water management,

both within the district and on the farm. Irrigation scheduling is expected to

ultimately reduce early season diversions by approximately 16,000 acre-feet and to

increase late season diversions by about 4,000 acre-feet. Early season drainage

problems are projected to be reduced at a level of magnitude similar to the

reduction in early season diversion. Additional reductions in diversion may occur

when the incentive pricing program is implemented and the revolving loan fund

becomes operational.

Canal maintenance requirements are expected to be lower because of lower flows

in the early season. Service to district irrigators will improve with better timing of

deliveries and more late-season water. Other South Fork basin water users will

benefit by higher water levels in Spring Mountain Reservoir and improved quality of

drainage and return flows. 

Irrigation scheduling, education programs, and measuring devices do not directly

address the problems of inadequate deliveries to the lower end of the district. 

Possible impacts to those irrigators may be positive or negative. The situation for

irrigators at the lower end of the system may improve if irrigators at the upper end

actively participate in irrigation scheduling and reduce their demands. The

situation may deteriorate if irrigation scheduling results in higher demands during

peak periods, further stressing the canal. Because so little is understood about the

locations and amounts of losses in the system, the district is hesitant to engage in

a major construction effort to increase the canal capacity or arbitrarily line sections

of the canal. However, after measuring devices have been installed, the causes of

the delivery problems will be more clear. It may be that the next management plan

recommends construction projects as the most cost-effective solutions. 
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-17

Implementation Schedule and Budget

An implementation schedule and budget for the water management plan are

summarized in Table 12. 

Table 12

Springfield Irrigation District

Implementation Schedule and Budget

Activity Scheduled Start Budget

Publish ET and effective

precipitation information

Beginning of this irrigation

season

$2,000

Coordinate new ordering

system with Reclamation

Immediately $1,000

Demonstration programs Next season $5,000

Install measuring devices at

turnouts, 16 per year

Begin now, finish in 3 years $16,000/yr

Install staff gauges at drains

and wasteways

This season $1,200

Monitoring

A monitoring program is essential to determine the effectiveness of the new

program. It will also be key to identifying opportunities for further management

improvements. Monitoring efforts will include: 

• Data collection from gauges installed at turnouts 

• Data collection from new staff gauges on wasteways and drains 

• Periodic collection of feedback from district irrigators 

• Periodic comparison of crop requirement estimates with diversions 

• Periodic inspection of canal conditions 

• Periodic evaluation of selected program’s fulfilment of Springfield's goals 

At least annually, district staff will review the data gathered to determine if goals

are being met. Where necessary, they will refine issues and goals, add or delete

measures, adjust schedules, or refine budgets. The entire plan will be updated in

5 years.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Springfield Irrigation District Water Management Plan

Example Plan-18

Some positive benefits are expected from implementation of this plan. Some

additional in-stream flows are expected below the district’s diversion on South Fork

and drainage flows are expected to be reduced. This should improve the quality of

flows for downstream habitat and other water users. No major canal lining projects

are planned at this time so there should not be major impacts to wetlands.

Most components of the plan can be implemented without extensive environmental

compliance activities. The one exception may involve completion of an in-stream

flow agreement. Reclamation’s participation in the agreement would constitute a

federal action and would trigger the need for environmental compliance activities.
Glossary

G-1

Glossary
Glossary

G-2

Glossary

Acre-foot: A volume of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot, or 325,850

gallons of water. 

Application efficiency: The ratio of the average depth of irrigation water infiltrated and

stored in the root zone to the average depth of irrigation water applied, expressed as a

percent. 

Applied water: Water delivered to a user. Also called delivered water. Applied water

may be used for either inside uses or outside watering. It does not include

precipitation or distribution losses. It may apply to metered or unmetered deliveries. 

Aquifer: Underground water-bearing geologic formation or structure. 

Arable: Having soil or topographic features suitable for cultivation. 

Artificial drains: Man-made or constructed drains. 

Available capacity: The amount of water held in the soil that is available to the plants. 

Check dam: Small barrier constructed in a gully or other small watercourse to decrease

flow velocity, minimize channel scour, and promote deposition of sediment. 

Conduit: Any open or closed channel intended for the conveyance of water. 

Conjunctive use: The coordinated use of surface water and groundwater resources. 

Conservation: Increasing the efficiency of energy use, water use, production, or

distribution. 

Consumptive use (evapotranspiration): Combined amounts of water needed for

transpiration by vegetation and for evaporation from adjacent soil, snow, or

intercepted precipitation. Also called: Crop requirement, crop irrigation

requirement, consumptive use requirement. 

Continuous-flow irrigation: System of irrigation water delivery where each irrigator

receives his allotted quantity of water at a continuous rate. 

Contour ditch: Irrigation ditch laid out approximately on the contour. 

Contour farming: System of farming used for erosion control and moisture conservation

whereby field operations are performed approximately on the contour. 

Contour flooding: Method of irrigation by flooding from contour ditches. 

Contour furrows: Furrows plowed approximately on the contour on pasture or rangeland 
Glossary

G-3

to prevent soil loss and increase infiltration. Also furrows laid out on the contour for

irrigation purposes. 

Control structure: Water regulating structure, usually for open conduits. 

Conveyance loss: Loss of water from a channel or pipe during conveyance, including

losses due to seepage, leakage, evaporation and transpiration by plants growing in or

near the channel. 

Conveyance system efficiency: The ratio of the volume of water delivered to users in

proportion to the volume of water introduced into the conveyance system. 

Critical habitat: Areas that contain essential habitat features important for the

conservation of a species. Designated critical habitat may require special

management or protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Crop irrigation requirement: Quantity of water, exclusive of effective precipitation, that

is needed for crop production. 

Crop root zone: The soil depth from which a mature crop extracts most of the water

needed for evapotranspiration. The crop root zone is equal to effective rooting depth

and is expressed as a depth in inches or feet. This soil depth may be considered as

the rooting depth of a subsequent crop, when accounting for soil moisture storage in

efficiency calculations. 

Cropping pattern: The acreage distribution of different crops in any one year in a given

farm area such as a county, water agency, or farm. Thus, a change in a cropping

pattern from one year to the next can occur by changing the relative acreage of

existing crops, and/or by introducing new crops, and/or by cropping existing crops. 

Crop water requirement: Crop consumptive use plus the water required to provide the

leaching requirements. 

Cubic feet per second (ft3/s): A rate of streamflow; the volume, in cubic feet, of water

passing a reference point in 1 second. 

Deep percolation: The movement of water by gravity downward through the soil profile

beyond the root zone; this water is not used by plants. 

Demand scheduling: Method of irrigation scheduling whereby water is delivered to users

as needed and which may vary in flow rate, frequency, and duration. Considered a

flexible form of scheduling. 

Distribution efficiency: Measure of the uniformity of irrigation water distribution over a

field. 

Distribution loss: See conveyance loss. 

Distribution system: System of ditches, or conduits and their appurtenances, which
Glossary

G-4

conveys irrigation water from the main canal to the farm units. 

District: An entity that has a contract with the Reclamation for the delivery of irrigation

water. Such entities include, but are not limited to: canal companies; conservancy

districts, ditch companies, irrigation and drainage districts, irrigation companies,

irrigation districts, reclamation districts, service districts, storage districts, water

districts, and water users associations. 

Ditch: Constructed open channel for conducting water. See canal, drain. 

Diversion (water): Removal of water from its natural channels for human use. 

Diversion (structure): Channel constructed across the slope for the purpose of intercepting

surface runoff; changing the accustomed course of all or part of a stream. 

Drainage: Process of removing surface or subsurface water from a soil or area. 

Drainage system: Collection of surface and/or subsurface drains, together with structures

and pumps, used to remove surface or groundwater. 

Drip (trickle) irrigation: An irrigation method in which water is delivered to, or near,

each plant in small-diameter plastic tubing. The water is then discharged at a rate

less than the soil infiltration capacity through pores, perforations, or small emitters on

the tubing. The tubing may be laid on the soil surface, be shallowly buried, or be

supported above the surface (as on grape trellises). 

Drought: Climatic condition in which there is insufficient soil moisture available for

normal vegetative growth. 

Erosion: A gradual wearing away of soil or rock by running water, waves, or wind. 

Evaporation: Water vapor losses from water surfaces, sprinkler irrigation, and other

related factors. 

Evapotranspiration: The quantity of water transpired by plants or evaporated from

adjacent soil surfaces in a specific time period. Usually expressed in depth of water

per unit area. 

Fallow: Land plowed, tilled, and left unplanted. 

Farm consumptive use: Water consumptively used by an entire farm, excluding domestic

use. See irrigation requirement, consumptive use, evapotranspiration. 

Farm distribution system: Ditches, pipelines and appurtenant structures which constitute

the means of conveying irrigation water from a farm turnout to the fields to be

irrigated. 

Farm loss (water): Water delivered to a farm which is not made available to the crop to be

irrigated. 
Glossary

G-5

Field capacity: Depth of water retained in the soil after ample irrigation or heavy rain

when the rate of downward movement has substantially decreased, usually 1 to 3

days after irrigation or rain, expressed as a depth of water in inches or feet. Also

called field moisture capacity. 

Fixed amount-frequency scheduling: Method of irrigation scheduling that involves

water delivery at a fixed rate or a fixed volume and at constant intervals. Examples

include rotation and continuous flow methods. Considered a rigid form of

scheduling. 

Flood control pool: Reservoir volume reserved for flood runoff and then evacuated as

soon as possible to keep that volume in readiness for the next flood. 

Flood irrigation: Method of irrigating where water is applied from field ditches onto land

which has no guide preparation such as furrows, borders, or corrugations. 

Frequency demand scheduling: Method of irrigation scheduling similar to demand

scheduling, but typically involves a fixed duration of the delivery, such as 24 hours. 

This method is considered flexible, although somewhat less so than demand

scheduling from the water users perspective. 

Gate (irrigation): Structure or device for controlling the rate of flow into or from a canal

or ditch. 

Gated pipe: Portable pipe with small gates installed along one side for distributing

irrigation water to corrugations or furrows. 

Gauge: Device for registering water level, discharge, velocity, pressure, etc. 

Gauge height: Elevation of water surface measured by a gauge. 

Gauging station: Specific location on a stream where systematic observations of

hydrologic data are obtained through mechanical or electrical means. 

Gravity irrigation: Irrigation method that applies irrigation water to fields by letting it

flow from a higher level supply canal through ditches or furrows to fields at a lower

level. 

Groundwater: (1) Water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock,

supplying springs and wells. The upper level of the saturated zone is called the water

table. (2) Water stored underground in rock crevices and in the pores of geologic

materials that make up the earth's crust. That part of the subsurface water which is in

the zone of saturation; phreatic water. 

Groundwater mining (overdraft): Pumping of groundwater for irrigation or other uses,

at rates faster than the rate at which the groundwater is being recharged. 

Groundwater recharge: The flow to groundwater storage from precipitation, infiltration
Glossary

G-6

from streams, and other sources of water. 

Groundwater table: The upper boundary of groundwater where water pressure is equal to

atmospheric pressure, i.e., water level in a bore hole after equilibrium when

groundwater can freely enter the hole from the sides and bottom. 

Growing season: The period, often the frost-free period, during which the climate is such

that crops can be produced. 

Hydraulic efficiency: Efficiency of a pump or turbine to impart energy to or extract

energy from water. The ability of hydraulic structure or element to conduct water

with minimum energy loss. 

Hydrology: Science dealing with the properties, distribution and flow of water on or in the

earth. 

Infiltration rate: The rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per

unit of time in inches per hour or feet per day. The infiltration rate changes with time

during irrigation. 

Instream flows: Water flows for uses within a defined stream channel, e.g., flows

intended for fish and wildlife. 

Irrigated acreage: Irrigable acreage actually irrigated in any 1 year. It includes irrigated

cropland harvested, irrigated pasture, cropland planted but not harvested, and the

acreage in irrigation rotation used for soil building crops. 

Irrigation: Application of water to lands for agricultural purposes. 

Irrigation check: Small dike or dam used in the furrow alongside an irrigation border to

make the water spread evenly across the border. 

Irrigation efficiency: The ratio of the average depth of irrigation water that is beneficially

used to the average depth of irrigation water applied, expressed as a percent. 

Beneficial uses include satisfying the soil water deficit and any leaching requirement

to remove salts from the root zone. 

Irrigation frequency: Time interval between irrigations. 

Irrigation requirement: Quantity of water, exclusive of effective precipitation, that is

required for crop production. 

Land classification: Reclamation's systematic placing of lands into classes based on their

suitability for sustained irrigated farming. Land classes are defined by productivity,

with class 1 being the most productive. For other classes, the equivalent acreage to

class 1 for the same productivity is defined (class 1 equivalency). 

Land leveling: Process of shaping the land surface for better movement of water and

machinery over the land. Also called land forming, land shaping, or land grading. 
Glossary

G-7

Land retirement: Permanent removal of land from agricultural production. 

Land-use planning: Development of plans for the use of land that will, over a long

period, best serve the general public. 

Leaching: Removal of soluble material from soil or other permeable material by the

passage of water through it. 

Leaching requirement: Quantity of irrigation water required for transporting salts

through the soil profile to maintain a favorable salt balance in the root zone for plant

development. 

Lining: Protective covering over the perimeter of a conduit, reservoir, or channel to

prevent seepage losses, to withstand pressure, or to resist erosion. 

Lysimeter: An isolated block of soil, usually undisturbed and in situ, for measuring the

quantity, quality, or rate of water movement through or from the soil. 

Neutron probe: An instrument used to estimate soil moisture. Relates the rate of

attenuation in pulsed neutron emissions to soil water content. 

Nonconsumptive water uses: Water uses that do not substantially deplete water supplies,

including swimming, boating, water-skiing, fishing, maintaining stream related fish

and wildlife habitat, and generating hydropower. 

On-farm: Activities (especially growing crops and applying irrigation water) that occur

within the legal boundaries of private property. 

On-farm irrigation efficiency: The ratio of the volume of water used for consumptive use

and leaching requirements in cropped areas to the volume of water delivered to a

farm (applied water). 

Operational losses: Losses of water resulting from evaporation, seepage, and spills. 

Operational waste: Water that is lost or otherwise discarded from an irrigation system

after having been diverted into it as part of normal operations. 

Pan evaporation: Evaporative water losses from a standardized pan. Pan evaporation is

sometimes used to estimate crop evapotranspiration and assist in irrigation

scheduling. 

Parshall flume: A calibrated device, based on the principle of critical flow, used to

measure the flow of water in open conduits. Formerly termed the Improved Venturi

Flume. 

Percolation: Downward movement of water through the soil profile or other porous

media. 
Glossary

G-8

Percolation rate: (1) The rate at which water moves through porous media, such as soil;

and (2) intake rate used for designing wastewater absorption systems. 

Perforated pipe (sprinkler): Pipe designed to discharge water through small, multiple,

closely spaced orifices or nozzles, placed in a segment of its circumference for

irrigation purposes. 

Permanent wilting point: Soil water content below which plants cannot readily obtain

water and permanently wilt. Sometimes called "permanent wilting percentage." 

Permeable: Having pores or openings that permit liquids or gasses to pass through. 

Permeability: 

1. Qualitative: The ease with which gases, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or pass

through a layer of soil or porous media. 

2. Quantitative: The specific soil property designating the rate at which gases and

liquids can flow through the soil or porous media. 

Permeameter: Device for containing the soil sample and subjecting it to fluid flow in

order to measure permeability or hydraulic conductivity. 

Phreatophyte: Water plant. 

Potential evapotranspiration: Rate at which water, if available, would be removed from

soil and plant surfaces. 

Pump-back system: A return flow system in which tailwater is pumped back to the head

of an irrigation ditch for reuse. 

Reservoir: Body of water, such as a natural or constructed lake, in which water is

collected and stored for use. 
Glossary

G-9

Return flow: That portion of the water diverted from a stream which finds its way back to

the stream channel, either as surface or underground flow. 

Return-flow system: A system of pipelines or ditches to collect and convey surface or

subsurface runoff from an irrigated field for reuse. Sometimes called a "reuse

system." 

Reuse system: See return-flow system. 

Riparian: Of, on, or pertaining to the bank of a river, pond, or lake. 

Root zone: That depth of soil which plant roots readily penetrate and in which the

predominant root activity occurs. 

Runoff: The portion of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the soil,

eventually making its way to surface water supplies. 

Saline: The condition of containing dissolved or soluble salts. Saline soils are those

whose productivity is impaired by high soluble salt content. Saline water is that

which would impair production if used to irrigate sensitive crops without adequate

leaching to prevent soil salinization. 

Second-foot: See cubic feet per second. 

Sediment load: Amount of sediment carried by running water. 

Sedimentation: Deposition of waterborne sediments due to a decrease in velocity and

corresponding reduction in the size and amount of sediment which can be carried. 

Seepage: The movement of water into and through the soil from unlined canals, ditches,

and water storage facilities. 

Seepage loss: Water loss by capillary action and slow percolation. 

Siphon tube: Relatively short, light-weight, curved tube used to convey water over ditch

banks to irrigate furrows or borders. 

Slope: Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent

or degrees. 

Soil classification: Systematic arrangement of soils into classes of one or more categories

or levels to meet a specific objective. Broad groupings are made on the basis of

general characteristics, and subdivisions are made on the basis of more detailed

differences in specific properties. 
Glossary

G-10

Soil conservation: Protection of soil against physical loss by erosion and chemical

deterioration by the application of management and land-use methods that safeguard

the soil against all natural and human-induced factors. 

Soil moisture: Water stored in soils. 

Sprinkler irrigation: A method of irrigation in which the water is sprayed, or sprinkled,

through the air to the ground surface. 

Sprinkler systems: 

1. Boom type: An elevated, cantilevered sprinkler(s) mounted on a central stand. 

The sprinkler boom rotates about a central pivot. 

2. Farm system: System which will properly distribute the required amount of

water to an entire farm. 

3. Field system: That part of a farm system which covers one field or area for which

it is designed. 

4. Hand move: Method of moving the sprinkler system by uncoupling and picking

up the pipes manually, requiring no special tools. This includes systems in which

lateral pipes are loaded and unloaded manually from racks or trailers used to move

the pipes from one lateral setting to another. 

5. Mechanized: System which is moved either by engine power, tractor power,

water power, or hand power on wheels or skids. Generally considered as any type of

system that can be moved without carrying manually. 

6. Permanent: System consisting of permanent underground piping with either

permanent risers for sprinklers, or quick coupling valves, in such a manner that

sprinklers may be attached. 

7. Self-propelled system: Portable system which moves continuously when in

operation. May rotate about a pivot in the center of field, or move laterally across the

field in a predetermined direction. 

8. Semi-portable: Systems designed with permanent pumping units and mains, but

with portable sprinkler laterals. 

9. Side-roll system: System, mounted on wheels, usually employing the lateral pipe

line as an axle, where the lateral is moved at right angles to the mainline by rotating

the pipeline either by hand or by engine power. 

10. Solid set: System, either permanent or portable, which covers the complete field

with pipes and sprinklers in such a manner that all the field can be irrigated without

moving any of the system. 

11. Towed system: System where lateral lines are mounted on wheels, casters,
Glossary

G-11

sleds, or skids, and are pulled or towed in the field to be irrigated in a direction

approximately parallel to the lateral. 

Subirrigation: Applying irrigation water below the ground surface either by raising the

water table within or near the root zone, or by use of a buried perforated or porous

pipe system which discharge directly into the root zone. 

Surface soil: Upper part of the soil ordinarily moved in tillage, or its equivalent in

uncultivated soils, about 10 to 20 cm in thickness. 

Surface water: An open body of water such as a river, stream, or lake. 

Surge irrigation: A surface irrigation technique wherein flow is applied to furrows (or

less commonly, borders) intermittently during a single irrigation set. 

Tailwater: Applied irrigation water that runs off the lower end of a field. Tailwater is

measured as the average depth of runoff water, expressed in inches or feet. 

Tensiometer: Instrument, consisting of a porous cup filled with water and connected to a

manometer or vacuum gauge, used for measuring the soil-water matric potential. 

Varied amount - fixed frequency scheduling: Method of irrigation scheduling that

involves water deliveries that vary in flow rate or amount over time, but that are

made at constant intervals. An example is the rotation method when a minimum flow

is delivered almost continuously. Considered a rigid term of scheduling. 

Water budget: An analytical tool whereby the sum of the system inflows equals the sum

of the system outflows. 

Water conveyance efficiency: Ratio of the volume of irrigation water delivered by a

distribution system to the water introduced into the system. 

Water delivery system: Reservoirs, canals, ditches, pumps, and other facilities to move

water. 

Water demand: Water requirements for a particular purpose, as for irrigation, power,

municipal supply, plant transpiration or storage. 

Water holding capacity: Amount of soil water available to plants. See available soil

water. 

Water transfers: Selling or exchanging water or water rights among individuals or

agencies. 

Westwide: The 17 Western states in which Reclamation projects are located; namely,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington,

and Wyoming. 
Glossary

G-12

Wetlands: Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as wet

meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. An area characterized by

periodic inundation or saturation, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions. 

Wetted perimeter: Length of the wetted contact between a conveyed liquid and the open

channel or closed conduit conveying it, measured in a plane at right angles to the

direction of flow. 

Wilting point: The soil water content below which plants growing in that soil will remain

wilted even when transpiration is nearly eliminated.
Appendix

A-1

Appendix
Appendix

A-2

RESOURCES

Documents

Allen, R.G. and C.E. Brockway. 1983. Research Technical Completion Report,

Estimating Consumptive Irrigation Requirements for Crops in Idaho. University of

Idaho, College of Agriculture/Engineering.

ASCE. 1991. Irrigation and Drainage. Proceedings of the 1991 national conference

sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division, July 11-13, Durango, Colorado. 

Edited by S.C. Harris.

ASCE. 1990. Irrigation and Drainage. Proceedings of the 1990 national conference

sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division, July 11-26, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Edited by W.F. Ritter.

ASCE. 1980. Irrigation and Drainage - Today’s Challenges. Proceedings of the 1980

specialty conference sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division, July 23-25. 

Edited by J. Eggleston.

Brockway, C.E., and D.L. Reese. 1973. Operation and Maintenance Costs on Irrigation

Distribution Systems. University of Idaho, College of Engineering.

Brower, L. Albert, and Jerry F. Buchheim. 1982. An Irrigation District Computerized

Water Management System. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation. Presented at the Ninth

Technical Conference on Irrigation, Drainage, and Flood Control.

Buchheim, Jerry F., and L.A. Brower. 1981. Forecasting Water Diversions to Meet

Irrigation Requirements. Paper Number 81-2094. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation,

Engineering and Research Center. For presentation at the 1981 Summer Meeting,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Buchheim, Jerry F., and Lowell F. Ploss. 1977. Computerized Irrigation Scheduling

Using Neutron Probes. Paper Number 77-2004. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation,

Engineering and Research Center. For presentation at the 1977 Annual Meeting,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Colorado State University. 1994. Best Management Practices for Irrigation Management. 

Bulletin #XCM-173. Prepared by CSU Cooperative Extension office with

cooperation from Colorado Department of Health and Environment, USDA Soil

Conservation Service, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, and CSU

Department of Agriculture and Chemical Engineering.

Colorado State University. 1977. Irrigation Return Flow Quality Management.

Proceedings of a national conference, May 16-19, Fort Collins, Colorado,

sponsored by CSU and EPA. Edited by James P. Law, Chief, Irrigated Agriculture
Resources - Documents

A-3

Section, EPA; Robert S. Kerr, Environmental Research Lab, EPA; and Gaylord V.

Skogerboe, professor, Dept. of Agricultural and Chemical Engineering, CSU. 

Haider, Thomas R. 1992. Canal Linings Used by the Bureau of Reclamation with

Emphasis on Rehabilitation. Prepared for the USDI, Water Conveyance Branch,

Civil Engineering Division, Denver Office, Bureau of Reclamation.

Haider, Thomas R. and Thomas E. Mitchell. 1988. Interim Report on Canal Linings Used

by the Bureau of Reclamation. Prepared for the USDI, Water Conveyance Branch,

Civil Engineering Division, Denver Office, Bureau of Reclamation.

Hamon, Carol E., and Kate Jones. Energy Conservation Through Irrigation Efficiency: A

Handbook. Produced by Energy Conservation for Colorado Agriculture, Colorado

State Conservation Board.

Houston, C.D. 1967. Drainage of Irrigated Land. Circular 504, University of California,

Davis, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Jensen, M.E. (editor). 1983. Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. An ASAE

Monograph, number 3 in a series published by ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Keller, Jack. 1965. Effect of Irrigation Method on Water Conservation. Journal of

Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 91 (IR2): 61-74.

Luthin, J.N. (editor). Drainage of Agricultural Lands. Number 7 in the series, Agronomy. 

American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

MacDonnell, L.J., C.W. Howe, K.A. Miller, T.A. Rice, and S.F. Bates. 1994. Water

Banks in the West. Final project report prepared for the USGS, award number

1434-92-2253.

Merriam, John, L. 1977. Efficient Irrigation: You Can Plant More Land With Less Water.

Agricultural Engineering Department, California Polytechnic State University. 

Renfro, Jr., George. 1968. Sealing Leaking Ponds and Reservoirs. Paper No. SCS-TP150. USDA, Soil Conservation Service.

Scott, Vern H., and Clyde E. Houston. 1959. Measuring Irrigation Water. Circular 473,

University of California, Davis, Agricultural Experiment Station.

USDA. 1988. Farm Irrigation Rating Index. Soil Conservation Service, West National

Technical Center, Portland, Oregon.

USDA. 1988. Colorado Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation Service, Denver, Colorado.

USDA. National Engineering Handbook. Section 16. Soil Conservation Service,

Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1973. Drainage of Agricultural Land. Soil Conservation Service, Water

Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
Appendix

A-4

USDA. 1970. Irrigation Water Requirements. Engineering Division Soil Conservation

Service, Technical Release No. 21.

USDI. 1995. Water Conservation Directory. Bureau of Reclamation.

USDI. 1994. Water Conservation Directory. Bureau of Reclamation.

USDI. 1994. Deschutes - Canal-Lining Demonstration Project, Construction Report. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Planning Program and

Development Office; Denver Office, Research and Laboratory Services Division,

Hydraulics Branch.

USDI. 1992. Construction Cost Trends. Bureau of Reclamation, Construction Division,

Denver, Colorado.

USDI. 1992. 1992 Summary Statistics. Bureau of Reclamation. 

USDI. 1990. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Bureau of Reclamation,

Denver, Colorado.

USDI. 1989. Cost Estimating Handbook. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office,

Construction Division, Engineering Support Branch.

USDI. 1984. Design Standards No. 3 - Canals and Related Structures. Bureau of

Reclamation.

USDI. 1980. Public Involvement Manual: Involving the Public in Water and Power

Resources Decisions. Prepared by James L. Creighton, Water and Power

Resources Service.

USDI. 1975. Water Measurement Manual. Bureau of Reclamation, Washington D.C.

USDI. 1965. Economic Justification for Canal Lining in Irrigation Distribution Systems.

Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

USDI. 1952. Linings for Irrigation Canals. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Walker, Wynn, R., and Gaylord Skogerboe. 1984. The Theory and Practice of Surface

Irrigation. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Waskom, R.M., G.E. Cardon, and M.A. Crookston. 1994. Best Management Practices for

Irrigated Agriculture: A Guide for Colorado Producers. Colorado State

University, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Fort Collins, Colorado, and

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Loveland, Colorado.
Resources - Consumptive Use

A-5

Consumptive Use

Blaney, Harry F., and K. Harris. 1951. Consumptive Use and Irrigation Requirements of

Crops in Arizona (Provisional). USDA Soil Conservation Service, p 46.

Erie, L.J., O.F. French, D.A. Bucks, and K. Harris. 1982. Consumptive Use of Water by

Crops in the Southwestern United States. USDA-ARS, Conservation Research

Report No. 29, p. 40.

Young, Arthur A., and Harry F. Blaney. 1942. Use of Water by Native Vegetation. 

California State Bulletin No. 50, Sacramento, California, p. 160.

Young, Arthur A. 1945. Irrigation Requirements of California Crops. California State

Bulletin No. 51, Sacramento, California, p. 132.

State of California. 1975. Vegetative Water Use in California, 1974. Department of

Water Resources, Bulletin No. 113-3.

State of California. 1967. Vegetative Water Use. 1967. Department of Water Resources,

Bulletin No. 113-2.

State of California. 1963. Vegetative Water Use Studies. 1963. Department of Water

Resources, Bulletin No. 113.

USDA. 1978. Colorado Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation Service, Denver, Colorado.

Allen, R.G., and C.E. Brockway. 1983. Estimating Consumptive Irrigation Requirements

for Crops in Idaho. 

USDA. 1970. Irrigation Guide for Southern and Southeastern Idaho. Soil Conservation

Service. 

Hanson, R.E., and W.R. Meyer. 1953. Irrigation Requirements - Estimate for Kansas. 

Kansas State College, Bulletin No. 69, pp. 1-24.
A-6

USDA. 1975. Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation Service.

Monson, O.W., W.D. Criddle, and S. Davis. 1953. Estimated Water Requirements of

Crops in Irrigated Areas of Montana. State College Agricultural Experiment Station

Bulletin No. 494.

USDA. 1973. Irrigation Guide for Montana. Soil Conservation Service.

USDA. 1971. Irrigation Guide for Nebraska. Soil Conservation Service.

Houston, C.E. 1955. Consumptive Use of Water by Alfalfa in Western Nevada. University of

Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 191, p. 20.

Houston, C.E. 1950. Consumptive Use of Irrigated Water by Crops in Nevada. Nevada State

Bulletin No. 185, p. 27.

USDA. 1981. Irrigation Guide for Nevada. Soil Conservation Service.

Blaney, H.F., and E.G. Hanson. 1965. Consumptive Use and Water Requirements in New

Mexico. New Mexico State Engineer’s Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico Technical

Report No. 32.

Gregory, E.J., and E.G. Hanson. 1976. Predicting Consumptive Use with Climatological

Data. New Mexico State Water Resources Research Institute, New Mexico State

University, Report No. 066, p. 43.

Henderson, D., and E.F. Sorensen. 1968. Consumptive Irrigation Requirements of

Selected Irrigated Areas in New Mexico. Agricultural Experiment Station, New

Mexico State University, Bulletin No. 531, p. 55.

USDA. 1976. Irrigation Guide for New Mexico. Soil Conservation Service.
Resources - Consumptive Use

A-7

Davis, S., N. Evans, and A. Hazen. 1952. Estimates of Irrigation Water Requirements for

Crops in North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural College Experiment Station,

Bulletin No. 377, p. 18.

USDA. 1977. North Dakota Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation Service.

Garton, J., and W. Criddle. 1955. Estimates of Consumptive-use and Irrigation Water

Requirements in Oklahoma. Oklahoma A&M College, Technical Bulletin No. T57, pp. 1-26.

USDA. 1981. Irrigation Guide for Oklahoma. Soil Conservation Service.

Watts, E., C. Dehlinger, J. Wolfe, and M. Shearer. 1968. Consumptive Use and Net

Irrigation Requirements for Oregon. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon

State University, Circular of Information 628, P. 40.

USDA. 1973. Oregon Engineering Handbook, Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation

Service.

Erie, L. 1952. Consumptive Use and Irrigation Water Requirements of Crops in South

Dakota (Provisional). Soil Conservation Service.

Erie, L. N., and N. Dimick. 1954. Soil Moisture Depletion by Irrigated Crops Grown in

South Dakota. Agricultural Experiment Station, South Dakota State College,

Circular 104.

USDA. 1978. Irrigation Guide for South Dakota. Soil Conservation Service.

McDaniels, L. 1960. Consumptive Use of Water by Major Crops in Texas. Texas Board

of Water Engineers, November 1960, Bulletin No. 6019, p. 47.
A-8

Thompson, C. 1964. Irrigation Water Requirements in Texas. Proceedings of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage Division, September

1964, pp. 17-40.

McDaniels, L. 1966. Evapotranspiration as Related to Water Rights in Texas. American

Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage Specialty Conference, Las

Vegas, Nevada, November 2-4, pp. 131-168.

Criddle, W., K. Harris, and L. Willardson. 1962. Consumptive Use and Water

Requirements for Utah. Office of Utah State Engineer, Technical Bulletin No. 8.

Huber, A., et al. 1982. Consumptive use and Water Requirements for Utah. State of Utah,

Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 75, 92 pp.

USDA. 1980. Irrigation Guide for Utah. Soil Conservation Service.

James, L. et al. 1982. Irrigation Requirements for Washington - Estimates and

Methodology. Washington State University. Research Bulletin XB0925.

USDA. 1974. Washington Irrigation Guide. Soil Conservation Service.

Trelease, F., P. Rechard, T. Swartz and R. Burman. 1970. Consumptive Use of Irrigation

Water in Wyoming. Wyoming Water Planning Report No. 5, Water Resources Series

No. 19, State Engineers Office, Cheyenne, WY., p. 85.

USDA. 1974. Irrigation Guide for Wyoming. Soil Conservation Service.