Water Transfers from a State Perspective Drivers Legal Requirements Impacts to Areas of Origin results of a WGA-WSWC survey of state water resource managers Conclusion Water transfers are an important tool across the West and many states are incorporating transfers in their plans for growth. is important the state's role in mitigation what's behind transfers Common Barriers Informal Agreements Featuring data from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming In considering whether or not a change to the water right can occur, most states consider effects to other water rights holders and the environment, but not the area of origin. In most cases, state agencies rule over the change of use of a water right and a change in the point of diversion, but not the sale/lease of the right itself. The most common driver of water transfers is urban/suburban development, especially as growing cities search for more secure water rights. Public opinion can be a barrier – for instance, Nebraska cited concern that that conversion from irrigated to non-irrigated status will reduce local property tax revenues. "Gentlemens' Agreements" are sometimes used to supplement instream flows while avoiding legal red tape. Utah's law on instream flows is fairly restrictive, so informal agreements often are utilized for environmental transfers. Colorado has historically used informal agreements with success, but a drought in 2002-03 caused some senior water users to lose out on water and withdraw from the agreement. Alternative transfer methods (ATMs) lack measuring and monitoring capabilities and standards in order to determine the amounts of water that can be made available through ATMs without injury to other water rights. In Nevada, the public protest and appeals process significantly slows most large transfer deals. Arizona's Assured Water Supply Program requires developers of new subdivisions to show that they have 100 years of renewable water supplies before they can build. This -- and the Groundwater Management Act which incentivizes development of land within historically irrigated desert lands -- has helped fuel Arizona's growth over the last 60 years. Beginnings We started our work on transfers by examining data recorded by The Water Strategist from 1988-2009. However, energy development factors into some of the few of transfers that occur in some states east of the 100th meridian. Broad requirements like Washington's stipulation that the new water use "be in the public interest" are found in several states. Some states go even further: Texas, for example, accounts for "projected economic impact to the basin of origin and receiving basin" when evaluating surface water transfers. Groundwater and surface water are generally handled separately. In California, for instance, state law provides that groundwater cannot be transferred from specified basins absent compliance with a county-adopted groundwater management plan. The practical effect of this statutory provision has been to essentially shut down the market for groundwater transfers. Note: The following two figures were developed from data published by the Bren School at UCSB, originally collected by The Water Strategist. This data is not considered definitive; it is meant only to provide a broad overview.