Abstract
An efficient water market has been established in a large water district in northern Colorado, USA. This is the most active water market in the USA in terms of number of transactions per year. The typical trade is from agriculture where marginal net values lie in the range of US$20– US$50 per acre-foot to towns where willingness-to-pay is closer to US$500 per acre-foot. The water being traded is imported from another basin, a feature that, under western US water law, allows the importer to consume the water completely without concern for downstream impacts. The ownership instruments are homogeneous shares that allow the owner to share proportionally in water available to the District. Transfers of the shares must be within the District and require approval only by the District Board (as opposed to typical State level administration of transfers). These two features result in low transaction costs that stimulate frequent small trades. Since irrigated agriculture consumes 85 % of Colorado’s total supply, typical transactions involve permanent share transfers from agricultural uses to industrial and urban uses but temporary leases for 1 year are frequent, especially among agricultural users. Environmental groups and some towns have increasingly contributed or loaned their shares to instream flow and riparian ecosystem maintenance. Prices of these shares have risen rapidly with high population and commercial growth of the region.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Thanks to Brian Werner of NCWCD for these observations on the changing market scene.
- 2.
The anticipated yield of the Project was 310,000 acre-feet, so 310,000 shares (allotments) were made available with the expectation that each allotment would represent 1 acre-foot of water.
- 3.
This concern about further revenues to help repay construction costs must be understood in light of the depressed economy of the 1930s. While large subsidies were included in the repayment contract (a 50 year repayment period with no interest on the unpaid balance, no adjustments for inflation and 50 % of the costs being repaid in the last 10 years of the repayment period), there was still concern about the District’s ability to meet the required payments.
References
Getches, D. H. (1997). Water law in a nutshell. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Goemans, C., & Kroll, S. (2012). Benefits and costs of introducing leasing to water markets: An experimental analysis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Howe, C. W. (1987). Project benefits and costs from national and regional viewpoints: Methodological issues and case study of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Natural Resources Journal, 27, 5.
Howe, C. W. (2000). Protecting public values in a water market setting: Improving water markets to increase economic efficiency and equity. University of Denver Water Law Review, 3(2), 357.
Howe, C. W. (2008). Water law and economics: An assessment of river calls and the South Platte well shutdown. University of Denver Water Law Review, 12(1), 181.
Howe, C. W., & Goemans, C. (2003). Water transfers and their impacts: Lessons from three Colorado water markets. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39(5), 1055–1065.
Howe, C. W., Schurmeir, D. R., & Shaw, W. D. (1982). Innovations in water management: An ex-post analysis of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. University of Colorado, Department of Economics. Unpublished.
Howe, C. W., Boggs, C., & Butler, P. (1990). Transactions costs as determinants of water transfers. University of Colorado Law Review, 61(2), 393.
Michelsen, A. M. (1994). Administrative, institutional and structural characteristics of an active water market. Water Resources Bulletin, 30(6), 971–982.
National Research Council. (1992). Water transfers: Efficiency, equity and environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: website www.northernwater.org
Oamek, G., Gardner, R., Weber, K., & Howe, C. W. (2010). A proposed method for incorporating rural population-business thresholds (“Tipping points”). In: Honey Creek Resources Inc. Water Transfer Evaluations (A report prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation Board).
Oggins, C. R., & Ingram, H. (1989). The community consequences of rural to urban water transfers. Tucson: The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy.
Smith, R. T. (2011). Strategic Water Group LLC. Talk given at the Congressional Research Service seminar on Water Markets and Transfers, Washington, DC, 17 Feb 2011. Unpublished.
Wensley, M. R., & Stabler, J. C. (1998). Demand-threshold estimation for business activities in rural Saskatchewan. Journal of Regional Science, 38(1), 155–177.
Young, R. A. (1986). Why are there so few transactions between water users? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68, 1143–1151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Howe, C.W.(. (2015). The Development of an Efficient Water Market in Northern Colorado, USA. In: Lago, M., Mysiak, J., Gómez, C., Delacámara, G., Maziotis, A. (eds) Use of Economic Instruments in Water Policy. Global Issues in Water Policy, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18287-2_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18287-2_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18286-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18287-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)