Questions about where irrigation water should be measured and delivered continued to surface at recent Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) meetings, culminating in a detailed presentation from Federal Watermaster Dave Wathen on how water rights are administered under the Alpine Decree.
The discussion stems from concerns raised by Fallon-area farmer Norm Frey, who has repeatedly questioned whether water users in the Newlands Project are receiving the full amount of water associated with their rights when losses occur between district delivery points and the farm.
At the June 2 TCID board meeting, Wathen explained that under the Alpine Decree, the federal court decree governing the Carson River system, water rights are tied to the land and historically have been viewed as being delivered to the property receiving the water.
"We've always said it's the property lines," Wathen said during the presentation while discussing how delivery has traditionally been evaluated.
The issue is particularly important in the Newlands Project, where water is often conveyed through a combination of district-owned canals and laterals as well as privately maintained ditches before reaching fields.
Frey argued that some irrigators have gradually lost part of their usable water supply because measurements are taken before water travels through long stretches of ditch.
"We do not get our 2.99 delivered to the land," Frey told the board.
Wathen acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting that water losses can vary significantly depending on ditch conditions and whether facilities are publicly or privately maintained. In cases where water travels through private ditches, he said it becomes difficult to determine how much loss should be attributed to the delivery system and how much responsibility rests with the landowner to maintain the ditch.
The debate followed concerns raised during the May board meeting and was addressed during a broader presentation on the Alpine Decree during the June meeting. The decree governs water rights on the Carson River above Lahontan Reservoir.
Wathen explained that the decree established irrigation duties ranging from 4.5 to 9 acre-feet per acre upstream of Lahontan Reservoir depending on land classification, while lands within the Newlands Project operate under a 2.99 acre-foot consumptive use standard.
The decree also divides the Carson River into a series of independently regulated segments. When river flows become insufficient to satisfy all water rights, the Federal Watermaster administers deliveries according to priority dates within each segment.
Wathen emphasized that the decree is designed to maximize beneficial use of water while recognizing historical practices such as rotations, return flows and reuse of water throughout the river system.
Former TCID President Ernie Schank told the board that attempts were made years ago to impose stricter federal-style measurement requirements on upper Carson River users. He said many irrigators opposed the idea because they feared it would lead to increased litigation and costly disputes over every measurement and diversion.
"We were just going to make the pockets of the lawyers rich," Schank said, recalling concerns that stricter regulation would lead to continual lawsuits.
The conversation returned to the issue later in the meeting when board members discussed whether TCID should adopt a formal policy defining where deliveries are measured. Board members ultimately chose not to take action, with General Manager Ben Shawcroft recommending the issue remain under discussion rather than becoming a formal policy matter at this time.
Director Davy Stix argued that removing terms such as "headgate" and "takeout" from the discussion simplifies the issue.
"We should be able to deliver to somebody's property line," Stix said. "What happens after that, it's on their dime."
No action was taken by the board regarding water measurement policies. However, the discussion highlighted ongoing questions about where water deliveries should be measured within the Newlands Project and how those practices align with the historical administration of water rights under the Alpine Decree. Board members agreed to leave the matter under discussion rather than pursue a formal policy change at this time.
Comment
Comments