HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 L Fancher - BOCC 1st Open Record Period Comments1
Kyle Collins
From:Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:00 PM
To:Kyle Collins
Cc:Dave Swisher
Subject:247-21-000616-PA/-000617-PZ, Swisher Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Attachments:Letter PostHearing BOCC Swisher.pdf; COID_PATRON-
HANDBOOK_PROD_singles2017.pdf;
Headwater+Economics+Deschutes_River_Basin_Agricultural_Report_HeadwatersEcono
mics marked up.pdf; US Census Bureau.pdf; water_panel_series_-_final_report.pdf;
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015.pdf; Circular 1441 part.pdf;
2017Census_Irrigation_and_WaterManagement.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kyle:
I’ve attached documents for inclusion in the record of the Swisher plan amendment and zone change application that
address water issues. Would you please include them in the electronic record and present the documents to the Board
for their consideration so that they will become a part of the record?
All documents listed in my letter should be attached with this e‐mail with the exception of the Board of Commissioner’s
ordinance that approved a second zone change and plan amendment for land owned by the Department of State
Lands. That ordinance will be sent in a separate e‐mail due to its size.
I will be filing paper copies of all exhibits at the CDD counter later today.
Thank you,
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541‐385‐3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
1
Kyle Collins
From:Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:12 PM
To:Kyle Collins
Cc:Dave Swisher
Subject:Swisher Zone Change/Plan Amendment 247-21-000616-PA/-000617-ZC
Attachments:DSL State of Oregon PA and ZC.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kyle:
Please include this ordinance in the record of the above‐referenced cases along with the materials I sent by e‐mail a
short time ago.
Thank you,
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541‐385‐3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
February 9, 2022
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY 1300 NW WALL STREET BEND, OR 97703
Filed with Deschutes County Community Development Department (Planner Kyle Collins) Re: 247-21-000616-PA/-000617-ZC, Swisher Plan Amendment and Zone Change Tax Lot 100, Map 17-13-18C and Tax Lot 600, Map 17-13-18
I am writing on behalf of the applicant, Dave Swisher, to provide information requested by Commissioner Chang at the February 2, 2022 hearing regarding the above-referenced land use applications. Commissioner Chang asked for a comparison of water use for farm field irrigation and domestic use associated with new residences. This letter provides a response
supported by source documents. Please include this letter and its enclosures in the record
of the above-referenced cases. ROLE OF WATER ISSUES RELEVANT TO REVIEW OF PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS
In 2011, the Board of Commissioners adopted a new comprehensive plan and interpreted it in its 2011 approval of the Department of State Lands’ nonresource plan amendment and zone change. It determined that water use impacts of future development of land are not a relevant consideration during the review of a plan amendment and zone change application.
This is due to the fact that Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.24 says that such water impacts
are to be addressed when land uses or development applications of property are proposed rather than during the review of zone change and plan amendment applications. This is explained in the Eastside Bend LLC decision (247-18-000485-PA/-000486-ZC):
“The applicant is not proposing a specific development proposal at this
time. Therefore, the applicant is not required to demonstrate the water
impacts associated with development. Rather, the applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the subject property, which will be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g.
conditional use permit tentative plat). This criterion [Plan Policy 2.5.24]
does not apply.” [emphasis added]
LIZ FANCHER, ATTORNEY
– 2 – February 9, 2022
This interpretation has been consistently applied by the Board, since 2011 and the adoption of this plan policy, to nonresource land zone change and plan amendments decisions. The
subsequent decisions include the Porter Kelly Burns, Eastside Bend and State of Oregon
(2nd decision) decisions.1 The only relevant issue regarding water that applies at the time of the review of a plan amendment and zone change application is whether the change will serve the public health,
safety and welfare considering the availability and efficiency of necessary public services
and facilities. Mr. Swisher has shown that Avion Water Company is willing and able to serve the subject property. This is the type of proof that has been provided and accepted by the Board as achieving compliance with this criterion in other similar County applications.
OVERVIEW The Swisher property is located in the Central Oregon Irrigation District (“COID”). As a result, the water use history of COID was used to estimate irrigation water use for the
Swisher property.2 Approximately 176,193,612 gallons of water per year would need to
be diverted from the Deschutes River to irrigate the 80-acre Swisher property. The Swisher property is located in the service area for Avion Water Company, a supplier of domestic water. Domestic water use information for Deschutes County, which includes
both outdoor irrigation and indoor water use was obtained from the USGS. The USGS
information shows that eight homes served by a domestic water supplier such as the Avion Water Company will use less than 1% (.7345 percent) of the amount of water that would need to be taken from the Deschutes River to irrigate the Swisher property.
Avion’s rural customers will likely use more water than the average domestic water system
customer because rural lots are larger than urban lots and both are included by the USGS in assessing average water use by domestic water systems. As a result, a discussion of the differences between irrigation water use for agriculture and domestic water use has been provided that shows that there is likely to be a significant difference in the amount of water
used to irrigate residential properties rather than a farm pasture. Additionally, almost all of
the Swisher property could be irrigated using Avion water now – without approval of a zone change and plan amendment. Approval of the pending applications, therefore, will not increase the Swisher’s right to use water to irrigate their property.
1 The first two decisions are Exhibits I and L of the applicant’s land use application. The
second DSL decision is included as an attachment to this letter. The second DSL decision explains that this is the interpretation adopted in 2011. The original 2011 decision has not been provided because it could not be located on DIAL.
2 This is not to suggest that irrigating the Swisher property would be allowed as a beneficial use of water. It is not an accepted farm practice in Deschutes County to obtain
irrigation water from groundwater irrigation for properties located within an irrigation
district so the impacts of this source were not considered.
– 3 – February 9, 2022
I have also discussed water use from exempt wells because Commissioner Chang asked
about this potential source of water. If an exempt well is used, irrigation of the property will be strictly limited to one-half acre of land per exempt well. This is just 5% of the area of a 10-acre subdivision lot. The amount of water needed to irrigate that area is less than 60% of the amount needed to irrigate the same area with COID water. This is due to the
fact that the delivery of water by COID results in a loss of over 40% of the water taken
from the river according to data reported by Headwater Economics in a recent study commissioned by Central Oregon LandWatch. As a result, the amount of water pumped from an exempt well will be less than 60% of the amount of water used for farming (assuming it is feasible which it is not) and even lower due to irrigation efficiencies
achieved by drip and sprinkler irrigation used in residential landscaping.
Exempt domestic wells are allowed to pump up to 15,000 gallons per day. This amount is not, however, the amount of water used by rural residents. In fact, it is not uncommon for exempt wells to be shared by neighbors.
The EFU zoning of the subject property allows the Swishers, with conditional use and partition approval, to divide and develop their property with four rural residences. 3 Therefore, the amount of water use associated with four of the homes that may be built under MUA-10 zoning is not an impact of approval of the proposed zone change and plan
amendment application.
The following is an explanation of how I arrived at these conclusions: IRRIGATION WATER USE FOR FARM PASTURE
Assuming that a water right could be obtained to irrigate the Swisher property, the amount of water use for irrigation can be estimated as follows: 6.759 AF water per acre = amount of water diverted from the Deschutes River annually
by COID according to COLW/Headwaters Economics report
(304,195 acre-feet diverted to irrigate approximately 45,000 acres)4 1-acre foot of water = 325,850 gallons of water per COID Patron Handbook
3 Each tax lot is a lot of record that should qualify for approval of a nonfarm dwelling. Each should also be able to obtain approval of a non-irrigated land division to create two nonfarm parcels for a total of four dwellings.
4 4 AF per acre is the amount of water delivered to COID patrons annually per COID Patron Handbook and Central Oregon LandWatch report by Headwaters Economics (2017) but more water must be drawn from the Deschutes River to deliver this volume of water.
– 4 – February 9, 2022
2,202,420 gallons = amount of water diverted from Deschutes River by COID to irrigate one acre of land
80 acres of land = size of property to be irrigated 176,193,612 gallons = amount of water diverted from Deschutes River by COID to irrigate 80 acres of land (annually)
RESIDENTIAL WATER USE Domestic Water Use Avion Water Company is willing to serve the Swisher property. The USGS maintains and reports information about the amount of water use by customers of domestic water companies like Avion. Domestic water use, according to the USGS, includes indoor water
use and water used to water lawns and gardens. I was unable to locate information that assesses the water use of rural residences only. This use is likely higher than the typical use of water by a public domestic water supplier because the average irrigated area on rural lots is likely larger than the same area on urban
lots. I, therefore, have provided information about the irrigation of lawns and landscaping in the discussion of exempt wells, below, so that the Board will have an idea of the difference between agricultural water use and residential lawn irrigation. 178 gallons per day = amount of water used per person per day in Deschutes
County from water companies according to USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface https://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/water_use?format=html_table&rdb_compression=file&wu_year=2015
See, column titled “Domestic per capita use, public-supplied,
in gallons/person/day” 5 2.49 persons = persons per household per US Census data (most current)
443.22 gallons = gallons of water per day used by typical Deschutes County
household for irrigation and indoor use (178 x 2.49) 161,775 gallons = gallons of water per year per household
5 Link provided for purposes of verification because I am unable to print full document due to its width.
– 5 – February 9, 2022
8 homes = development allowed with approval of a standard subdivision of the Swisher property6 - an increase of four
homes from EFU zoning
1,294,202 gallons = water use by eight homes in one year7 647,101 gallons = water use for four homes allowed by EFU zoning
Irrigation vs. Domestic = 136 times more water is needed to irrigate the Swisher property than to provide water to eight Deschutes County homes for domestic water use (typical customer of public utilities or municipal water systems). Put another way
domestic water use by customers of utility companies and
municipal water services is only .7345 percent of irrigation water use. Exempt Wells
Oregon law exempts certain wells from water permit requirements. Domestic wells are exempt if they use less than 15,000 gallons of water per day. This is far more water than used by a single residence. In fact, one exempt well should provide enough water to meet the domestic water needs for all homes that might be built on the Swisher property.
Exempt wells are limited by law to being used to irrigate one-half acre of lawn. ORS 537.545. If one well is drilled to serve the Swisher property, the maximum area of the Swisher property that may be irrigated is .5-acre of 80 acres; only .625% of the entire property. If each new homeowner drills an exempt well and eight lots are created by a
future subdivision, the irrigated area of the Swisher property would not exceed 4 acres or
5% of the Swisher property.8 As mentioned earlier, COID water is lost during delivery to patrons. This means that, district-wide, only 59.18% of the water diverted is applied to the land.9 This loss does not
occur for an exempt well so the amount of water that would be used to irrigate a .5-acre
6 This is the maximum number of homes allowed without approval of a conditional use. The maximum number of homes allowed with conditional use approval of a planned or cluster development is 10 or an increase of 25%. Whether this increase would be allowed
is unknown at this time.
8 This percentage would be 6.25% of the entire property if a planned or cluster
development were able to receive conditional use approval. 9 The COID Patron Handbook and COLW/Headwaters Economics report state that the amount of water delivered to COID patrons is approximately 4-acre feet per acre. Data
contained in COLW/Headwaters Economics report shows that 6.759-acre feet per acre in
the COID district are diverted from the Deschutes River annually (304,195 AF diverted annually to irrigate approximately 45,000 acres).
– 6 – February 9, 2022
from an exempt well would be 59.18% lower than the amount of water taken from the Deschutes River to irrigate farm properties in the COID district. This means that exempt
well irrigation from eight exempt wells is the equivalent of irrigating just 2.95% of the
Swisher property with COID water. Domestic irrigation of a residential lawn with a sprinkler or drip system should also uses significantly less irrigation water than required to irrigate farm fields which use less
efficient irrigation methods, including flood irrigation. This, combined with the fact that
water is lost in transit by COID delivery systems, means that the total irrigation water use associated with new homes on the Swisher property should be significantly less than the amount of water needed to irrigate the entire property for a theoretical farm use.
Additionally, because irrigation water use is included in the data for domestic water users,
some of the water associated with this use is already accounted for in the estimate of domestic water use provided earlier. For instance, water users in Multnomah County use only 66 gallons per day per capita for household and irrigation water needs – suggesting that more than 112 gallons per day per capita or 280 gallons per day per resident of
Deschutes County domestic water use is attributable to irrigation water use.
Finally, development of the Swisher property under the existing EFU zoning would likely allow the creation of four parcels and four exempt wells. This part of the estimated water, therefore, is not attributable to approval of the zone change and plan amendment.
Furthermore, the approval of the pending applications will not authorize any development
other than the construction of one home on each of the two tax lots. The impacts of more intense development and water use will be addressed during County review of a required subdivision application.
Supporting Documents
I am filing copies of the following documents: COID Patron Handbook
Agriculture and Irrigation in Oregon’s Deschutes and Jefferson County, January 2017 commissioned by Central Oregon Landwatch and prepared by Headwaters Economics Quick Facts for Deschutes County, Oregon, US Census Bureau website
Planning Commission Water Panel Series Report, Deschutes County Community
Development, February 2019 (highlighted added)
Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015, Summary of Circular 1441 published by USGS Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015, Circular 1441 published by USGS, Tables 2.A, Total water withdrawals by water-use category, 2015, in million gallons per
day and pp. 18-19 (explains “public supply” water use)
– 7 – February 9, 2022
Irrigation and Water Management, Results from the 2018 Irrigation and Water
Management Survey, 2017 Census of Agriculture Highlights, US Department of
Agricultural (USDA) Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 2018-011 decision approving second nonagricultural land plan amendment and zone change for the Oregon Department
of State Lands
Sincerely,
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher Enc. – 8
Cc: client
2465 NW SACAGAWEA LANE • BEND, OREGON • 97703
PHONE: 541-385-3067
Central Oregon Irrigation
District Patron Handbook
CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Welcome to the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID). This handbook is
an educational tool to help you understand district policies and procedures
as well as helping you keep your water rights in good standing. Owning land
with water rights comes with many rules and responsibilities. Should you
have any questions please call the office or email us. The COID website is the
best place to keep up on current information about the district. Our office
hours are from 7am–4pm and we have an emergency answering service for
after-hours water issues. You can also email us with any questions you might
have. We look forward to serving you as a COID Patron.
Phone: 541-548-6047
Email: info@coid.org
Website: www.coid.org
3
CONTENTS
District Overview ......................................................4
Board of Directors .....................................................4
Division Map ..........................................................5
History ...............................................................6
Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fees ..................................................................8
Water Rights ..........................................................9
Water Rights Transfers and Change of Ownership .........................10
Beneficial Use ........................................................10
Tail Water and Waste ..................................................11
Irrigation Season .....................................................12
Maintenance .........................................................13
Patroleman ..........................................................14
Beats Map ...........................................................15
Winter Stock Water Runs ..............................................16
Domestic Use of Water ................................................17
Rotation Schedules ....................................................17
Mapping Department .................................................18
District Rights-of-Way .................................................18
Point of Delivery ......................................................19
Land Use & Development ..............................................20
Glossary .............................................................22
Conversion Charts ....................................................23
4
DISTRICT OVERVIEW
Central Oregon Irrigation District, incorporated in 1918, is a Quasi-Municipal
Corporation of the State of Oregon chartered under Oregon Revised Statute
Chapter 545. Most of COID’s authorities and responsibilities are presented in this
section of State law.
The irrigation system consists of two main canals: the Pilot Butte Canal, which
runs north through Bend, Redmond and Terrebonne; and the Central Oregon
Canal, which runs east through Bend, Alfalfa and Powell Butte. Both canals
divert water from the Deschutes River.
The District provides water for about 45,000 acres within an 180,000-acre area
in Central Oregon. More than 400 miles of canals provide agricultural and
industrial water to the Bend, Redmond, Terrebonne, Alfalfa and Powell Butte
areas. In addition, COID provides water to subdivisions in the areas the canals
pass through, for landscapes and lawns, parks, cemeteries and golf courses.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Central Oregon Irrigation District is divided into five divisions: Terrebonne,
Redmond, Bend, Alfalfa and Powell Butte. Each Division is represented by
an elected board member. Qualified water users elect these directors for a
term of three years. Qualified voters must be 18 years of age or older and
must own land situated within the District that is subject to the charges
or assessments of the District. However, the voter need not reside in the
District or in the State of Oregon.
The Board’s regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday of each
month at 9:00 a.m. in the District office and are always open to the public.
The annual meeting and the Board of Equalization are held on the first
Tuesday in January of each year. The Board represents the water users in
establishing rules, regulations and policies for an efficient and equitable
operation consistent with the law. The Board hires a general manager who
is responsible for carrying out the Board directives and the day-to-day
operation of the District.
5
COID is divided into 5 divisions.
6
HISTORY
A.M. Drake initiated the first water diversion company, the Pilot Butte
Development Company, which also platted and mapped the cities of Bend and
Redmond. Prior to any water being delivered to a patron, the company was sold
to the Deschutes Irrigation & Power Company, the precursor of COID. 1904
marked the flow of irrigation water to the first 40 acres of land. By 1924, the
population had grown to 2,000 people with an impressive 28,500 acres under
irrigation. Irrigation helped create the cities of Bend and Redmond and helped
drive growth and industrialization to its present-day levels.
Before any water was diverted from the Deschutes River, appropriations to
divert the water had to be filed with the State of Oregon. The filing had to identify
where the diversion would occur and how much water would be diverted. Today
those very same appropriations are still in force. Water rights were assigned on a
first-come, first-serve basis also known as the “Doctrine of Prior Appropriations”.
But the ranch at the start of the canal must conserve and husband use if there
is to be any water for a ranch at the end of the canal. That same philosophy still
holds true today. Clean water is a resource to share and respect.
By 1907 the Central Oregon and the Pilot Butte Canals had been constructed.
1910 marked the creation of the Central Oregon Irrigation Company as a result
of foreclosure and ensuing reorganization of the Deschutes Irrigation & Power
Company. On December 17, 1917 the Central Oregon Irrigation Company was
turned over to its users who organized the Central Oregon Irrigation District.
The transition was not without rancor and was finally resolved by the courts
on July 9, 1921. The construction of canals and dams continued. 1912 saw the
completion of the North Canal Dam and connection to the Pilot Butte Canal.
It is located immediately south of The Riverhouse in Bend. The Central Oregon
Canal diversion is at the southern city limits of Bend.
The Carey Act of August 18, 1894 initiated many irrigation projects, such as
COID, by authorizing the federal government to contract with 17 western states
for land reclamation. The Carey Act structured the relationships between the
federal and state governments along with the irrigation projects that established
the water rights to reclaim the high desert land. A settler, referred to as an “Entry
Man”, signed a contract with an irrigation project to pay a certain amount for
water per acre of land desired to be reclaimed. The irrigation project used these
proceeds to construct the canals and laterals for the transport of water.
7
Once an Entry Man beneficially used the water to cultivate a crop and reclaim
the desert land for three consecutive years, the Entry Man received title to
the land (usually 160 acres) from the State and the water right was perfected.
There were a number of successful and non-successful irrigation projects
attempted in Oregon. This led to numerous claims to water rights that were
eventually adjudicated in 1958.
Throughout this time various upgrades to the irrigation system were necessary.
Wooden flumes were replaced by steel pipes and mechanical cleaners were added
to intake screens. In 1938, COID, Crook County Improvement District #1
(Lone Pine) and the Arnold Irrigation District formed a cooperative effort with
the federal government to construct a dam at Crane Prairie.
In 1989, after nearly ten years of work, COID completed the Siphon Power
Project along the Deschutes River in southern Bend. This hydroelectric
power plant can produce 5.5 megawatts of electricity, which is being sold to
Pacific Power. This enables the District to further develop capital improvements
to “conserve water” and make the distribution system more efficient and
upgrade the canal system to benefit the water users. No new amounts of
water are available.
Surface water in Central Oregon is a finite resource. The only way additional
water will become available to COID’s subscribers is through conservation.
The District is very much the product and tool of its patrons. It provides
municipal, industrial and irrigation water to over 4,000 deliveries. Like any
municipal corporation, COID exists to serve its constituents and relies on
them for its well-being. COID is proud of its partnership in the development
of Central Oregon. We all look forward to continued involvement in our future
and, as a part of that, actively support the conservation of all our natural resources.
8
ASSESSMENTS
Assessments are in two basic parts and are set each January by the Board of
Directors. The assessment is not based on a quantity of water delivered, but on
the costs to operate and maintain the delivery system and the District.
1. Base Charges: covers the cost of record-keeping, scheduling, insurance,
office facilities, general administration and overhead.
2. Operations and Maintenance: covers repairs and cleaning of the delivery
system and the distribution of water.
The annual assessment is mailed out to each patron account in January.
Payment terms for assessments are as follows:
1. First half of the yearly assessment is due and payable on April 1st.
Interest will be charged, as prescribed by law, on the past-due portion
as of May 1st.
2. Second half of the yearly assessment is due and payable on July 1st.
Interest will be charged, as prescribed by law, on the past-due portion
as of July 1st.
3. The District may withhold delivery of water on any past-due accounts.
4. Accounts not paid in full by July 1st are considered delinquent and
the following actions will be taken:
• A $250.00 late fee will be assessed on all delinquent accounts.
• The District will file a notice of claim of lien, which may lead
to foreclosure.
Please contact the office to arrange a monthly payment plan if the above
terms present a challenge and to avoid any late fees. There will still be interest
charged on unpaid balances after May 1st. Credit and debit payments are
now accepted online with a 3% processing fee.
FEES
The District charges fees for such items as transfers, changes made to the canal
and road system, pumping of water from District canals for industrial use,
in-stream leases, crossings, etc. Any time a patron contemplates any of these
situations, they should contact our office.
9
WATER RIGHTS
A water right gives you permission and an obligation to beneficially irrigate
a very specific area (generally measured in acres). The District and the State
keep very detailed records of what lands can be irrigated. COID water rights
have priority dates of 1900 and 1907. In addition, there is a supplemental
right to a portion of the stored water from Crane Prairie Reservoir. Your
water right also has a “duty of water” which is the maximum volume of water
you can receive during the irrigation season. The duty is measured in “acre feet”
and is stipulated by Oregon court decree. The duty is not guaranteed and the
actual amount of water received during the irrigation season may vary from year
to year depending on snow pack and natural stream flow. This water can only be
applied to lands with a water right.
Your water right also has a “rate,” which is the amount of water that flows to your
land, measured in gallons per minute, during the irrigation season. The water
right stipulates this rate and varies during the irrigation season between four to
six gallons per minute per acre of water right. All COID water rights have the
same rate and duty.
To receive a higher duty or rate of water is a violation of the water right and can
lead to forfeiture.
A water right remains valid as long as an irrigator beneficially uses the water at
least one year out of every five years. Failure to beneficially use may force the
District to confiscate the water right or it will be forfeited to the State and lost
from the District. Converting land to another use (road, parking lot, building,
etc.) can also result in the forfeiture of a water right. Prior to converting land to
another use, please see the water transfer section.
If your land mass is five acres or more, you will be required to “map” the water
right “on” or “off” of your property. If you are purchasing a water right, you will
also be required to have your land prepared to receive the water at the time the
transfer is processed. Oregon State law requires that lands with a new water right
be irrigated in the specific areas mapped within the first year of the transfer, and
at least one year out of every five years thereafter. If your water right is mapped,
you can only use the water on the specified areas.
10
WATER RIGHTS TRANSFERS AND
CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
The District is required by law to keep detailed records of water rights and
landowners. If you wish to sell a water right, a portion of a water right, or
if you wish to purchase a water right, please contact the COID office. A
transfer requires an application to the State of Oregon’s Water Resource
Department (OWRD) and must be filed in conjunction with the District. A
fee is required to process the transfer.
If you want to modify the location of the water, you will be required to file
a transfer with OWRD through COID. Failure to beneficially use the water
right may result in forfeiture of the water right. A water right remains valid
as long as an irrigator beneficially uses the full water right at least one year
out of every five years, regardless of changes in ownership.
BENEFICIAL USE
“Beneficial use” is the use of irrigation water to produce a crop, grass or landscape
areas. This means that the irrigation water will be used on land that has been
designated for this purpose — irrigable land, not rock piles, driveways, roadways or
under structures.
Landscape areas such as lawn or shrub beds, or a commercial crop such as
shrubs, trees or growing of plants for resale is allowed. The land must be under
production or cultivation to qualify as beneficial use. The placement of water
on land that is not cleared, seeded or under some type of cultivation is not
beneficial use. The use of irrigation water on anything that would grow naturally
without the benefit of irrigation water is not beneficial use.
NOTE: If you have any questions regarding your water rights, please
contact the office.
11
TAIL WATER AND WASTE
You should only use the water that you need. If you irrigate to the point that
water “runs off” of your land onto a neighbor’s parcel, that is called tail water. By
Oregon statute, tail water is the responsibility of the person whose land it runs
off, and is not necessarily welcomed by the receiving parcel owner. Tail water may
also be considered a waste of water and subject your water right to examination
by the District, or by OWRD.
The District is becoming more developed and the parcel sizes are becoming
smaller. This creates situations where a neighbor may not desire tail water as in
years past. Please be conscious of your responsibilities with managing your water
rights properly.
12
IRRIGATION SEASON
The irrigation season begins in April and ends in October. The length of the
season and the amount of water delivered will depend on weather conditions and
snow pack in the mountains. In addition, Oregon court decree provides for the
following deliveries of water:
• April 1st to May 1st, about 1/2 of summer irrigation flows
• May 1st to May 15th, about 3/4 of summer irrigation flows
• May 16th to September 15th, full summer irrigation flows
• September 16th to 30th, 3/4 of summer irrigation flows
• October 1st to 31st, 1/2 of summer irrigation flows
NOTE: Start and end dates for summer irrigation can start at any time
during those months, depending on weather and maintenance. Also, in
extreme dry conditions, additional water to supplement normal flows
may be released from Crane Prairie Reservoir.
MAINTENANCE
We do work on our system year-round. In the summer months, when irrigation
water is in the system, the full-time maintenance crew performs routine
maintenance work. In the winter months when the canals are dry, both the
patrolmen and full-time maintenance personnel work on the delivery system. At
some time when workload demands it or if a project takes special knowledge,
the District will use outside help to do the job. For the most part, however,
District personnel do the work.
As time permits, we will do work for our patrons. The Operations Manager
initiates all activities that are done by the maintenance crew. These are
then scheduled by the Maintenance Foreman.
The lining of ponds and piping of private ditches can cut losses and waste
substantially. It is also important that every water user help in preventing any
form of pollution from entering the distribution system. Any activity that degrades
water quality is strictly prohibited. The use of aquatic pesticides is also prohibited.
13
14
PATROLMEN
The patrolmen, or, as they are sometimes called, “ditchriders”, are normally
your best contact with the District. You can contact your patrolman through
the District office but often you will see them on the ditch banks during routine
patrolling of the water. The district has eight patrolmen that cover a specific area
noted in the Beat map.
The patrolman cannot always fix your problems. If they cannot provide
assistance, they can contact a supervisor who will help you. Sometimes this must
wait until the next day if it is after-hours. We ask that, if possible, you do not
contact the patrolman directly. Instead, call the office number and tell the staff
of your needs. You should, in most cases, get a return call from the supervisor
or patrolman within 30 minutes. When you call in, you should have your
patrolman’s name. If you do not have this information, call the office and they
will tell you who he/she is so you will have the information when you need it.
Remember, if water is not in the system and we have to move it, this can take up
to 72 hours. It is very difficult to order and move water from the river to COID
on weekends. You need to order your water during business hours.
NOTE: The patrolman is not a police officer; do not ask them to be
one. They cannot arrest, threaten or, in some cases, even go on another
person’s property. If another user is taking water out of turn or using
your water without your permission, call the office during normal
business hours. In most cases, it will require a supervisor to take care of
this situation.
Ordering water through the office or online is the most expedient way to do so.
It is important to plan ahead. It can take as long as 48 hours to get water for an
increase in the system, depending on water availability. The patrolmen can be
reached 24 hours a day by office personnel. During office hours, a call will do it.
After office hours there is an answering service that will relay your message to
the on-call supervisor. Please do not call 911 unless a life is in jeopardy.
15
NW O'NEIL HWY
SW HIGHWAY 126SW REIF RDSW RIGGS RD
SW HOUSTON LAKE RD
SW ALFALFA RDSW POWELL BUTTE HWYNW LONE PINE RDSW SHUMWAY RDNW SMITH ROCK WAY
HWY 20 S HWY 97N HWY 97
BEND PKWYW HWY 126
POW ELL BUTT E HW YCLINE FALLS RDALFALFA MARKET RD
BEAR CREEK RD
HWY 126
CENTURY DR
KNOTT RD
NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY
TUMALO RD SW CANAL BLVD
E HWY 126SB HWY 97NB HWY 97OLD BEND REDMO ND HWYNE ONEIL WAY
JOHNSON RANCH RDSW 27TH STSE 15TH STSE 27TH STCOOLEY RD
NE SMITH ROCK WAY
BUTLER MARKET RD
NW MAPLE AVE
SW CLINE FALLS RDSW HIGHLAND AVE
NE 27TH STNE 9TH STNW WALL STNE NEGUS WAY
SW AIRPORT WAYNE BUTLER M ARKET RDSKYLINERS RD
SE REED MARKET RDNE DIVISION STNW SHEVLIN PARK RD
SE VETERANS WAY
SE AIRPORT WAYNW 27TH STSW VETERANS WAYNW NEWPORT AVECOOK AVENW 14TH STSIMPSON AVE
SW COLORADO AVE
NW COLORADO AVE NE 15TH STNW 6T
H STSW YEW AVE
NE 10T
H STSE 15TH STN HWY 97HWY 20
NW MAPLE AVE
NE 27TH ST±CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
DATE: 9/29/16
BEATS
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
PB1
PB2
PB3
PB4
TERREBONNE
REDMOND
BEND
ALFALFA
POWELL BUTTE
NW O'NEIL HWY
SW HIGHWAY 126SW REIF RDSW RIGGS RD
SW HOUSTON LAKE RD
SW ALFALFA RDSW POWELL BUTTE HWYNW LONE PINE RDSW SHUMWAY RDNW SMITH ROCK WAY
HWY 20 S HWY 97N H
WY 97BEND PKWYW HWY 126
POWELL BU TTE HWYCLINE FALLS RDALFALFA MARKET RD
BEAR CREEK RD
HWY 126
CENTURY DR
KNOTT RD
NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY
TUMALO RD SW CANA L BLVD
E HWY 126SB HWY 97NB HWY 97OLD BEND REDMOND HWYNE ONEIL WAY
JOHNSON RANCH RDSW 27TH STSE 15TH STSE 27TH STCOOLEY RD
NE SMITH ROCK WAY
BUTLER MARKET RD
NW MAPLE AVE
SW CLINE FALLS RDSW HIGHLAND AVE
NE 27TH STNE 9TH STNW WALL ST NE NEGUS WAY
SW AIRPORT WAYNE BUTLER MARKET RD
SKYLINERS RD
SE REED MARKET RDNE DIVISION STNW SHEVLIN PARK RD
SE VETERANS WAY
SE AIRPORT WAYNW 27TH STSW VETERANS WAYNW NEWPORT AVECOOK AVENW 14TH STSIMPSON AVE
SW COLORADO AVE
NW COLORADO AVE NE 15TH STNW 6TH
ST
SW YEW AVE
NE 10TH ST
SE 15TH STN HWY 97HWY 20
NW MAPLE AVE
NE 27TH ST±CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
DATE: 9/29/16
BEATS
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
PB1
PB2
PB3
PB4
TERREBONNE
REDMOND
BEND
ALFALFA
POWELL BUTTE
NW O'NEIL HWY
SW HIGHWAY 126SW REIF RDSW RIGGS RD
SW HOUSTON LAKE RD
SW ALFALFA RDSW POWELL BUTTE HWYNW LONE PINE RDSW SHUMWAY RDNW SMITH ROCK WAY
HWY 20 S HWY 97N HWY 97
BEND PKWYW HWY 126
PO WELL BUTTE HWYCLINE FALLS RDALFALFA MARKET RD
BEAR CREEK RD
HWY 126
CENTURY DR
KNOTT RD
NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY
TUMALO RD
SW CANAL BLV DE HWY 126SB HWY 97NB HWY 97OLD BEND REDMOND HWYNE ONEIL WAY
JOHNSON RANCH RDSW 27TH STSE 15TH STSE 27TH STCOOLEY RD
NE SMITH ROCK WAY
BUTLER MARKET RD
NW MAPLE AVE
SW CLINE FALLS RDSW HIGHLAND AVE
NE 27TH STNE 9TH STNW WA LL ST
NE NEGUS WAY
SW AIRPO RT WAYNE BUTLER MARKET RD
SKYLINERS RD
SE REED MARKET RDNE DIVISION STNW SHEVLIN PARK RD
SE VETERANS WAY
SE AIRPO RT WAYNW 27TH STSW VETERANS WAYNW NEWPORT AVECOOK AVENW 14TH STSIMPSON AVE
SW COLORADO AVE
NW COLORADO AVE NE 15TH STNW 6TH ST SW YEW AVE
NE 10T
H ST
SE 15TH STN HWY 97HWY 20
NW MAPLE AVE
NE 27TH ST±CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
DATE: 9/29/16
BEATS
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
PB1
PB2
PB3
PB4
TERREBONNE
REDMOND
BEND
ALFALFA
POWELL BUTTE
COID has eight patrolman cover specific
areas on the canals called “Beats”.
16
WINTER STOCK WATER RUNS
COID water rights carry a specific right to receive water from the Deschutes
River during the maintenance season for livestock only. There is a fixed quantity
of water, per the COID water right certificate, allowed to be diverted during this
season and no more. The quantity allowed will provide for certain four (4) full
five-day runs per maintenance season per canal. Depending on the stock run
durations, quantity diverted, and weather conditions there may be water available
for a late season run, but this situation will change every year and cannot be
relied upon to actually take place.
Winter season water runs are not to be used, unless you have a special permit,
for irrigating land or any other use except livestock. Because the distribution
system is so large and open, we are severely impacted by weather conditions.
It is common for a water run to be postponed or cancelled due to severe cold.
This is due to the increased safety risk that comes with the potential for ice to
develop in the canals and block water from flowing freely through the system
and cause flooding of homes and barns. In the event a stock run is aborted, the
district staff will attempt to reschedule as soon as weather permits.
In addition, maintenance work schedules will cause winter stock runs to change
schedule. As a result of this, our winter water runs may not always be on a set
time and are subject to change. Contractors should always check with the office
for the latest schedule when they plan on working within the District canals
and rights-of-way. The schedule is always available and updated on the District’s
website (www.coid.org).
17
DOMESTIC USE OF WATER
The use of irrigation water for domestic use is prohibited. Federal and State
requirements mandate that all households must have alternate sources for
domestic water. Domestic use of water covers all aspects of water within your
home, (cooking, oral hygiene, bathing, washing dishes) not just drinking water.
NOTE: COID irrigation water does not meet Safe Drinking Water Act
standards for domestic use.
ROTATION SCHEDULES
Rotation Schedules are necessary to have enough water to effectively irrigate
your land. It is important that on your scheduled time, unless an arrangement
has been made with another person in your rotation, you pick up your water
on time. This means that you go and get your water physically at its source,
which should normally be at the person before you in the rotation. If that is not
the case, a patron on a rotation has the right, as an extension of the District’s
authority, to follow the ditch and get their water for their time only. It is the
patron’s responsibility to only take their water during their scheduled time. To
not do so causes confusion and will upset the working of the rotation.
If you are not going to use the water at your time, please contact someone and
make arrangements to have them pick up the water and use it or leave your
system open so the water will pass through your property to the next user. In
any case, your patrolman should be notified if you are making a change in your
use of the water. It is not possible to shut the ditch down during your rotation
due to transmission time and to make all the adjustments to the system. By
following this procedure, the rotation will work. Your neighbors appreciate your
help in this cooperative effort.
NOTE: Changes can be made to the rotation schedule with 100%
agreement of the involved patrons.
18
MAPPING DEPARTMENT
The mapping department for COID creates and maintains maps of all water
rights served by the District using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The
GIS uses a computer-mapping program, which associates customer and water
right information with the features on a map to provide quick access and analysis
of the information. The mapping department also creates and updates mapped
information for other District facilities, including District boundaries, canals,
laterals, easements and rights-of-way, points of diversion, points of delivery, head
gates, weirs and other features.
The mapping department also produces State required “off” and “on” maps for
processing the sale and transfer of water rights from one property owner to
another. Water right maps for new property owners are also created by the
mapping department, as well as maps for realtors, city and county personnel,
and others that request them. The mapping department works closely with the
data processing department to assure that all maps and parcel information are as
current as possible, and that any changes are processed in a timely manner. This
includes notification of parcel partitions, lot line adjustments and property sales.
DISTRICT RIGHTS-OF-WAY
The District’s rights-of-way were conveyed by the U.S. Government under the
terms of several acts of Congress at the time of the District’s formation. These
rights-of-way are reserved and protected for the operations and maintenance of
the District’s distribution system. Joint use by the landowner is subject to District
uses, which take priority. Canal and ditch rights-of-way may not be blocked and
no encroachments, crossings or other uses will be allowed that will interfere with
the District’s operation and use. This includes fences, gates, trees or bridges.
If you have a specific need, please contact the District office.
19
POINT OF DELIVERY
In general, the District’s Point of Delivery (POD) for irrigation water will be at
the high point on each 40-acre tract. Measurement devices are required at these
points and are now in place or in the process of being placed. Conveyances
beyond these points are private and it is the responsibility of the patrons past the
POD to satisfactorily maintain them. If this is not possible, arrangements must
be made with the District to have maintenance performed on them. The District
makes its equipment and personnel available, as time allows. If you would like a
quote for a project, please contact our office.
District head gates are required to be locked. This is for the protection of all
water users. Any person tampering with the District’s distribution system is
subject to prosecution under the laws of Oregon.
20
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
There has been considerable development in the past few years throughout the
District. If you are contemplating construction on your property, there are many
items potentially involving the District, your water rights and/or adjacent water
users that may need to be addressed.
Developing properties or doing lot line adjustments requires District approval.
Water Rights:
Are there water rights on the subject property? If so, they must either be
transferred off or a complete delivery system must be shown on plans for
each parcel. Included within the delivery system there must be easements
to each parcel retaining water rights and an irrigation contract to be
recorded within the county that clearly describes the delivery system to
each parcel.
District Deliveries and Easements:
The District was granted and has maintained exclusive federally authorized
rights-of-way within the Deschutes Basin for over a hundred years. It
is in the District’s best interest to maintain these rights-of-way clear and
unobstructed. These rights-of-way may include, but are not limited to, water
ditches, piped water and access roads that vary in width throughout the District.
Facilities that meander through proposed land divisions may need to be
piped or fenced on the outskirts of the right-of-way with an indemnification
agreement signed and recorded. When piping through development, the
District has standard right-of-way reduction specifications.
21
Crossings:
A crossing permit is required for any underground, surface or overhead crossing
of a COID facility. Contact with the District shall be made to acquire a crossing
permit prior to any work being done. Information required for crossings may be
obtained by contacting the District office.
Review Process and Fees:
The District is notified of all land use applications submitted to the county
or city that is within its boundaries. Therefore, the District will comment on
all land use applications and have signature lines on subject plats. Fees for
review and signature, piping agreements, etc. are charged prior to signing
related plans or plats.
22
GLOSSARY
ACRE: A measurement of land about 43,560 sq. feet or 208’x208’.
ACRE FOOT: Volume of water. Amount of water to cover an acre of land one
foot deep. This equals 0.504 cfs for 24 hours.
APPURTENANT: Belonging to. Water rights can be appurtenant to a specific
piece of land. The District is required to keep records of appurtenant water rights.
HEADGATE: A valve comprised of a plate, which slides over an opening and
controls the amount of water being diverted. Head gates can be adjusted and
locked. Head gates come in several different styles.
PATRON: An irrigation district customer.
STOCK WATER RUN: The District will run the canals every five or six weeks
in the winter to fill stock ponds. This is contingent on weather and maintenance
schedules.
SUMMER IRRIGATION FLOWS: This is the average irrigation flow between
May 16th and September 16th. At the present, the District is delivering six
gallons per minute per acre of water right. This may change more or less in
the future.
WATER RIGHTS: The requirement of a water user to have an area of irrigation
equivalent to the size of his/her water rights. For example, 1.5 acres of water
right = 1.5 acres of area being irrigated.
WEIR: There are many types of weirs. They may be a blade across a canal or river
or a slot through which water flows but they all measure water.
23
CONVERSIONS
1 cubic foot (cu.ft.).............................7.48 gallons
1 acre foot (a.f.)...................................325,850 gallons
1 acre foot/day.....................................0.504 c.f.s. for 24 hrs................226 g.p.m.
1 cubic foot per second (c.f.s.)..........1.9835 a.f. in 24 hrs
1 c.f.s.....................................................448.8 g.p.m.
1 gallon per minute (g.p.m.).............1,440 gallons per day (g.p.d.)
1 gallon water......................................8.34 lbs.
1 cubic foot (cu.ft.) water...................62.4 lbs.
1 pound per square inch (p.s.i.)........2.31 feet of head
1 foot of head .....................................0.433 p.s.i.
1 acre....................................................43,560 sq. feet
1 square mile......................................640 acres
(541) 548-6047
FAX (541) 548-0243
1055 SW Lake Court
Redmond, OR 97756
coid.org
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
Agriculture and Irrigation in Oregon’s
Deschutes and Jefferson Counties
A Research Report by
January 2017
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
Agriculture and Irrigation in Oregon’s
Deschutes and Jefferson Counties
January 2017
ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve
community development and land management decisions in the West.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Kimiko Barrett, Ph.D. | kimi@headwaterseconomics.org | 406-224-1837
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to all those who reviewed this report. It was commissioned by Central Oregon LandWatch.
P.O. Box 7059
Bozeman, MT 59771
https://headwaterseconomics.org
Cover Photos: Kimiko Barrett and Ray Rasker, Headwaters Economics.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 2
The Deschutes River Basin ....................................................................................................................... 2
Irrigation Districts in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties Diverting Deschutes River Water .................... 3
III. DATA AND METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 5
IV. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Socioeconomic Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 5
Irrigation Patterns and Crop Yields ........................................................................................................ 10
V. WATER USE PRACTICES ............................................................................................................... 13
Irrigation Efficiency and Water Conservation ........................................................................................ 14
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 16
VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: The Deschutes River in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR ................................................... 3
Figure 2: Irrigation Districts within the Upper Deschutes River Basin ........................................................ 4
Figure 3: Population Trends for Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (1970-2014) ................................. 5
Figure 4: Employment Trends by Major Industry for Deschutes County, OR (1970-2014) ........................ 6
Figure 5: Employment Trends by Major Industry for Jefferson County, OR (1970-2014) .......................... 7
Figure 6: Labor Earnings and Non-Labor Income for Deschutes County, OR (1970-2014) ........................ 8
Figure 7: Average Earnings per Job and per Capita Income for Deschutes County, OR (1970-2014) ........ 8
Figure 8: Labor Earnings and Non-Labor Income for Deschutes County, OR (1970-2014) ........................ 9
Figure 9: Average Earnings per Job and per Capita Income for Jefferson County, OR (1970-2014) .......... 9
Figure 10: Number of Irrigated Farms in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (1950-2012) ................ 10
Figure 11: Percent of Irrigated Land in Pasture vs. Cropland in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR
(1950-2012)................................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 12: Total Acres of Crops Harvested in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (2006-2013) ......... 12
Figure 13: Value of Crops and Livestock in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (2000-2012) ............ 12
Figure 14: Average Total Economic Impact from Agricultural Sales in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties,
OR (2000-2012) .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 1: Percent Water Efficiency Use by Irrigation District, Upper Deschutes River Basin .................... 15
Image 1: Example of a Drip Irrigation System ........................................................................................... 15
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes irrigation practices and farming productivity in irrigation districts withdrawing
Deschutes River water for use in Deschutes and Jefferson counties located in Central Oregon in the Upper
Deschutes River Basin. We compare socioeconomic data and agricultural trends between Deschutes
County, situated along the Upper Deschutes River, and Jefferson County, located downstream. Findings
from this report suggest the present system of water allocation encourages ineffective water use for
upstream senior water rights holders while driving water conservation measures for downstream junior
water rights holders. Important lessons therefore can be learned from downstream water conservation
strategies that, if applied basin-wide, could improve how water is distributed and used within the region.
This report is also intended to inform understanding of water management of the Deschutes River within
Deschutes and Jefferson counties. We demonstrate how minimal water flows necessitate conservation
strategies and improved water efficiencies for junior water right holders. We similarly show how
agricultural yield and economic value are highest on farms receiving the least amount of irrigated water.
In doing so, we hope to inform dialogue around a more balanced approach of water appropriation and use
of the Deschutes River.
Seven irrigation districts divert water from the Deschutes River and collectively serve 123,334 acres of
cropland, pasture, and residential landscapes in the Upper Deschutes River Basin.1 The two largest
irrigation districts are the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), located primarily in Deschutes
County, and the North Unit Irrigation District (NUID), located in Jefferson County. Together, the two
irrigation districts account for nearly 84 percent of all water diverted from the Deschutes River. Yet how
this water is used and applied reflects significant differences between the two districts. For instance, the
COID diverts 304,195 acre-feet (AF) to irrigate approximately 45,000 acres, while the NUID diverts
188,046 AF to irrigate nearly 60,000 acres.2 Other key findings from this report include:
x The irrigation districts in Deschutes County serve a more urban and developed area, with diverse
needs and relatively less economic dependence on agricultural production. By contrast, the NUID
in Jefferson County largely serves farmers who depend on irrigated water for crop production.3
x Between 2006 and 2013, farmers in Jefferson County harvested an average of nearly 13,000 acres
of specialty crops, such as vegetable and grass seeds, per year and diverted 60 percent less water
from the Deschutes River compared to farmers in Deschutes County who averaged 239 acres of
specialty crops per year.4
x Gross income from agricultural commodity sales totaled $74.4 million in Jefferson County and
contributed more than $260 million to the Central Oregon economy in 2012. At the same time,
agricultural commodity sales in Deschutes County averaged $26.1 million and contributed $91.3
million in total economic impacts.5
x As junior water rights holders, farmers with NUID apply water conservation strategies such as
canal lining, pressurized pumps, drip irrigation systems, and lateral piping to achieve an average
93.8 percent water efficiency. In contrast, senior water rights holders in Deschutes County
irrigation districts have averaged as low as 42.9 percent water efficiency.6
Given the uncertainty of meeting annual irrigation needs, Jefferson County farmers with NUID have
adopted water conservation measures to sustain agricultural productivity and economic livelihood.
Implementing similar water use practices across all the irrigation districts could alleviate supply concerns
of junior water rights holders and benefit the overall health of the Deschutes River.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 2
I. INTRODUCTION
Water management of Oregon’s Deschutes River is complicated by diverse economic conditions.
Multiple demands on the river have altered historic flow regimes and impacted the quantity and quality of
water. The legacy of water rights within the Deschutes River Basin dictates who benefits and who
sacrifices when it comes to water shortages.
Running along the eastern slopes of Oregon’s Cascade Mountains to its northern confluence with the
Columbia River, the Deschutes River is one of the state’s premier waterways. Segments of the river are
renowned for world-class fly fishing and whitewater opportunities, among other recreational pursuits.
The Deschutes River has been used heavily by farmers for more than a century. Water rights for irrigation
greatly exceed available water. Withdrawals from seven different irrigation districts primarily on the
upper section of the river serve nearly 125,000 acres annually.7 Diversion of the river for irrigation
purposes generates both controversy and opportunities for collaboration.
II. BACKGROUND
The Deschutes River Basin
The Deschutes River begins its southern descent from the Little Lava Lake, within the Cascade Range,
and runs approximately 8.5 miles to Crane Prairie Reservoir and then approximately 2 miles downstream
to Wickiup Reservoir.8 Upon leaving Wickiup Reservoir the river changes course and runs northward for
60 miles to the City of Bend. From Bend, the river continues to flow north into Lake Billy Chinook, then
through the town of Maupin, and empties into the Columbia River more than 250 miles from its source
(Figure 1).
Historically, the Deschutes River maintained one of the most consistent and stable water flows within the
region. The unique underlying volcanic physiography and porous soil profile allow surface water to
percolate into the subsurface and recharge the water table. Under natural conditions and prior to the
construction of the Wickiup Dam in 1947, estimated historical flows for the Upper Deschutes River
averaged 660 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the wintertime and 730 cfs in the summertime.9 However,
heavy irrigation and diversion of the river have altered annual water flows. In winter months the river
below Wickiup Reservoir experiences water flows as low as 14 cfs with higher flows in the summer when
the irrigation canals are opened. Median water flows in July and August are in the 1,400 cfs range,
reaching a maximum flow of around 2,000 cfs.10
Exacerbating the need to rely on irrigation systems is central Oregon’s arid climate. Often referenced as a
high desert, annual precipitation in the Upper Deschutes River Basin ranges from around 60 inches at its
highest elevations near the Three Sisters mountains to less than 15 inches in the Basin’s lowlands.11 The
lack of rainfall is largely due to the rain shadow effect of its leeward location on the eastern slopes of the
Cascade mountains. In addition, the relatively dry and warm climate of the Deschutes River Basin is
combined with a high number of sunny days. On average, the region enjoys nearly 300 days of sunshine
with temperatures usually averaging between 45 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and 20 to 40
degrees Fahrenheit during the winter months.12
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 3
Irrigation Districts in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties Diverting Deschutes River Water
Seven irrigation districts in Deschutes and Jefferson counties divert water from the Deschutes River
(Figure 2). A majority are relatively small providers yet combined, these irrigation districts serve 123,334
acres within Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook counties.13 Two districts, the North Unit Irrigation District
(NUID) and Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), account for more than 84 percent of the total
acreages irrigated by the seven districts. In general, the COID serves irrigators in Deschutes County, with
the exception of delivering water to about 250 acres in southern Jefferson County and another portion
located in Crook County.14 The NUID is located north of the COID and exclusively serves irrigators in
Jefferson County. Together, the NUID and COID provide water to almost all of the commercial farms
located in the Upper Deschutes River Basin served by the Deschutes River. The NUID irrigates nearly
60,000 acres of agricultural lands and COID irrigates around 45,000 acres.
The other five irrigation districts include Arnold, Lone Pine, Swalley, Tumalo, and Walker Basin
irrigation districts, which collectively irrigate less than 20,000 acres of farmland in Deschutes County. In
addition, there is the Ochoco Irrigation District, which diverts water from the Crooked River and its
tributaries, and the Three Sisters Irrigation District, which diverts water from Whychus Creek. Combined,
there are nine irrigation districts that operate in the Upper Deschutes River Basin and serve nearly
150,000 acres.15
The quantity of water each irrigation district is allowed to divert from the Deschutes River is determined
through a hierarchical system of water rights. Similar to many western states, water rights in Oregon are
mandated through prior appropriation laws, decreeing the “first in time, first in right” prioritization of
water. In the Upper Deschutes River Basin, the oldest water rights date back to the turn of the century
while the youngest water rights were awarded as recently as the 1960s. A majority of water rights were
granted between 1905 and 1915.16
Figure 1: The Deschutes River in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, Oregon.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 4
For the irrigation districts, and in particular NUID and COID, the appropriation of water rights is
significant to the management and economic sustainability of their farms. Irrigators within the COID are
senior water right holders and retain some of the earliest water privileges from the early 1900s. In general,
water deliveries to COID rights holders average four acre-feet (AF) per acre.17 By contrast, irrigators with
NUID hold junior water rights dating from 1913 and receive water deliveries that average around two AF
per acre.18 In addition, both irrigation districts hold storage water rights, meaning that when the natural
flow of the river is unable to satisfy the water rights of individual irrigation districts, stored water from
reservoirs is used. For NUID, storage water rights allocate up to 200,000 AF from the Wickiup Reservoir.
Storage water rights for COID are up to 26,000 AF from Crane Prairie Reservoir.19 Essentially, irrigation
needs for COID and the other irrigation districts within Deschutes County are provided by diverting water
from the Deschutes River, while irrigation needs for NUID irrigators are largely served from water stored
in the Wickiup reservoir during the winter. Water is released from Wickiup for NUID in the summer,
increasing river flow until it is diverted into the main irrigation canals in Bend.
As downstream users with junior water rights who depend on the reservoir for water, irrigators with
NUID are unfavorably positioned to receive adequate water supply. The uncertainties of a reliable water
supply make it challenging for NUID irrigators to plan cropping operations and other farming activities.
Figure 2: Irrigation Districts Within the Upper Deschutes River Basin, Excluding the Walker Basin Cooperative, Including priority
Water Rights Date.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 5
III. DATA AND METHODS
This report draws on published statistics from a variety of sources. The principal demographic and
economic data sources include: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of
Labor, and others.20 Statistics related to agricultural use, crop yields, and irrigation patterns were acquired
from U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon State University Extension Service.
All data sources are documented in the References section at the end of this report. For more details on
regional data, see the Economic Profile System developed by Headwaters Economics at:
https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/about/.
Although much of the following data describes overall socioeconomic and agricultural trends within
Deschutes and Jefferson counties and is not specific to individual irrigation districts, it is helpful in
understanding the different contexts in which the irrigation districts operate.
IV. FINDINGS
Socioeconomic Characteristics
A comparison of socioeconomic trends between Deschutes County and Jefferson County reveals
significant differences in demographic and economic composition that reflect similar transitions taking
place across the American West. Areas rich in recreational opportunities, scenic amenities, and other
quality of life values, such as Deschutes County, often experience an increase in population, personal
income, and employment. Areas with fewer recreational and scenic pursuits, and which tend to
predominantly dependent on agriculture, timber, and other natural resource-related industries, such as
Jefferson County, undergo only moderate growth in local demographics and economy.
According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau reports, Deschutes County is one of the fastest growing
areas in the country with a population increase of 452 percent since 1970 (Figure 3).21 Much of this
growth has been directed toward the City of Bend and surrounding metropolitan area. From 2000 to 2014
alone, the county gained 53,770 people, or a 46 percent increase. A majority of the growth during this
time period, nearly 85 percent, is attributed to people migrating to Deschutes County from outside the
county.22
Figure 3: Population Trends for Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (1970-2014)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 6
Since 1970, Jefferson County has grown at about a third the rate of Deschutes County. From 1970 to
2014, Jefferson County grew by 13,500 people or a 158 percent increase. In recent decades, population
growth has slowed down, adding 3,000 people since 2000. Unlike Deschutes County, however, nearly all
of the population growth in Jefferson County from 1970 to 2014 was attributed to net natural changes in
births exceeding deaths rather than migration.23 While people have not been moving to Jefferson County
in large numbers, people are not moving out of the county either.
Trends in the local economy mirror changes in Deschutes and Jefferson counties' population base. In
Deschutes County, employment grew 654 percent from 1970 to 2014. From 2001 to 2014, nearly 26,000
jobs were added to the employment base, a 34 percent increase. During this same time period, almost half
of the employment (47 percent) was in services-related industries such as retail trade, medicine, finance,
and insurance (Figure 4). Growth in other job sectors included government employment with a 22 percent
increase and non-services-related industries, such as farming, mining, construction, manufacturing, and
timber, with a 5 percent increase.
Jefferson County employment trends were significantly more modest in comparison. From 2001 to 2014,
overall employment grew by 246 jobs, from 8,325 to 8,571, or a 2.95 percent increase (Figure 5). While
jobs in services-related industries grew by 13 percent, employment in government and in most non-
services-related industries declined. During this time period, jobs in government decreased by 6.2 percent
and employment in Jefferson County’s construction and manufacturing sectors was reduced from 1,809
jobs in 2001 to 1,288 jobs in 2014, or a 28.8% decline. Employment decline was not consistent across all
non-services-related industries, however. Farming, for example, slightly grew from 723 jobs in 2001 to
773 jobs in 2014, remaining one of Jefferson County’s more stable employment sectors during this time
period.24
Figure 4: Employment Trends by Major Industry for Deschutes County, Oregon (2001-2014)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 7
The recent Great Recession impacted Deschutes and Jefferson counties in different ways. For much of the
1990s and 2000s, Deschutes County experienced an increasingly diversified economy with strong job
growth in construction, real estate, health care, and other industries. Variation in the employment base
was largely a reflection of the area’s growing appeal as a recreational hub and tourist destination, as jobs
in accommodation, food, and trade were growing. Yet, when the recession hit in late-2007 and 2008,
Deschutes County was among the most impacted areas in the country. Unemployment in the county
reached a historic high of 16.7 percent in 2009, well above the national average of around 9.5 percent.25
Jobs in construction precipitously dropped, declining more than 42 percent from 2005 to 2010. The loss
of job opportunities did not deter some people from moving to or staying in Deschutes County, however,
and by 2011 most employment sectors were beginning to show signs of recovery. Data from 2014
indicates that while jobs in construction, manufacturing, and farming had yet to reach their pre-recession
levels, employment in services-related industries such as retail and wholesale trade, transportation,
finance, real estate, education, and health have surpassed where they were before the recession.26
In Jefferson County, the economic impacts of the Great Recession were more nuanced. With the
exception of manufacturing, most employment sectors in Jefferson County were not significantly
impacted, although many did experience a slight downturn from 2008 to 2010. The highest decline was in
manufacturing jobs, which dropped from 1,722 jobs in 2005 to 901 jobs in 2010, a decrease of nearly 48
percent. Employment in retail trade, accommodation, and construction similarly declined but not as
significantly. Interestingly, jobs in government grew during the recession, from 2,534 jobs in 2005 to
2,617 jobs in 2010. By 2014, employment in non-services-related industries such as construction and
manufacturing was still recovering, but employment in farming and most services-related industries such
as tourism, accommodation and food, and public administration, had exceeded pre-recession levels.27
Figure 5: Employment Trends by Major Industry for Jefferson County, Oregon (2001-2014)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 8
Deschutes County’s growing professional and non-services-related workforce is associated with a robust
local economy. From 1970 to 2014, labor earnings, or total net revenue from wage and salary
employment, grew from $542 million to $3.77 billion, an increase of 596 percent. During the same time
period, non-labor income, or investment, retirement, social security, medical payments, and other transfer
payments substantially rose from $220 million in 1970 to more than $3.3 billion in 2014, a 1,416 percent
increase (Figure 6).28 The dramatic rise in non-labor income suggests Deschutes County’s ongoing appeal
as a recreation and retirement destination.
The average earnings per job in Deschutes County has seen little change from 1970 to 2014, only
increasing from $41,588 to $41,721 (Figure 7). By contrast, per capita income, which includes labor
earnings as well as non-labor income, has grown from $24,659 in 1970 to $41,675 in 2014, an increase of
nearly 70 percent.29
Figure 7: Average Earnings Per Job and Per Capita Income for Deschutes County, Oregon (1970-2014)
Figure 6: Labor Earnings and Non-Labor Income for Deschutes County, Oregon (1970-2014)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 9
During recent decades, Jefferson County has similarly demonstrated an increasing reliance on non-labor
income rather than income generated from wages and salaries. For example, while labor earnings grew
from $133.4 million to $332 million between 1970 and 2014, non-labor income increased from $44.7
million to $351 million, a 685 percent increase during the same time period (Figure 8).
Average earnings per job have fluctuated in recent decades, from $38,480 in 1970 to a peak of just more
than $50,000 in 1974, and then returning to $38,661 in 2014. However, per capita income in Jefferson
County has experienced relative stagnation during the past thirty years, averaging around $30,000 per
year, from 1974 to 2014 (Figure 9).30
Figure 8: Labor Earnings and Non-Labor Income for Jefferson County, Oregon (1970-2014)
Figure 9: Average Earnings per Job and per Capita Income for Jefferson County, Oregon (1970-2014)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 10
Since the 1970s, Deschutes and Jefferson counties have grown in population, employment base, and per
capita income. In Deschutes County, this increase has been exponential and characterizes one of the
fastest growing economies in the West. A large percentage of this growth is a result of non-labor income,
or wealth from retirement income, investment savings, and other forms of payments not directly tied to a
wage or salary. Alternatively, overall growth in Jefferson County has been more moderate. In Jefferson
County, natural births account for nearly all of the population growth since 2000 and employment is
largely driven by jobs in manufacturing, farming, government, and some services-related industries.
While both Deschutes and Jefferson counties demonstrate an upward trend in socioeconomic
performance, the pace and scale of growth between the two counties are different.
Irrigation Patterns and Crop Yields
As stated above, seven different irrigation districts in Deschutes and Jefferson counties, serving nearly
125,000 acres, draw water from the Upper Deschutes River. Demand is highest during the warm and dry
months of June, July, and early August, and lowest in the spring and fall. The Central Oregon Irrigation
District (COID) annually diverts an average of 304,195 AF of water from the Deschutes River to irrigate
44,784 acres. Alternatively, the North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) annually diverts an average of
188,046 AF to serve 58,868 acres.31 Together, the two irrigation districts account for 84 percent of all
irrigated water diverted from the Upper Deschutes River. Yet, how the irrigation districts use and
distribute irrigation water varies significantly.
Since the 1950s, land irrigation patterns in Deschutes and Jefferson counties have paralleled broader
socioeconomic changes taking place across the region. In Deschutes County, from the mid-1970s until the
Great Recession, the number of irrigated farms increased sharply from 362 farms in 1974 to a historic
high of 1,425 farms in 2002 (Figure 10). This upward trend reflected the county’s booming population,
which continued to climb from 1970 until late 2007,32 and the ongoing fragmentation of farms under real
estate development pressure and other impacts from urbanization.
Comparatively, in Jefferson County, the number of irrigated farms has remained relatively unchanged,
going from 298 farms in 1974 to 311 farms in 2002. By 2012, Deschutes County reported 1,025 irrigated
farms and Jefferson County reported 304 irrigated farms.33 The trend in irrigated farming units in
Jefferson County implies a pattern of land consolidation as individual farms acquire more acreage and
add to the overall agricultural land base within the county.
Figure 10: Number of Irrigated Farms in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR (1974-2012)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 11
The average size of individual irrigated farms is significantly smaller in Deschutes County relative to
Jefferson County. For example, a report by Alyward (2006) indicated that one-third of total irrigated
acreage in Deschutes County was on farms between 10 and 50 acres in size, in contrast to Jefferson
County where irrigated acreage was on farms between 260 and 2,000 acres.34
In addition, much more of Deschutes County’s irrigated land is distributed to both cropland and pasture.
On average from 1978 to 2012, approximately 56 percent of irrigated land in Deschutes County is
cropland and 44 percent is pastureland or grazing land for livestock (Figure 11). Jefferson County is
almost exclusively cropland with 90 percent of irrigated land dedicated to crop production and only 10
percent reserved for pasture or grazing.35
In Jefferson County, the large land allocation for cropland is demonstrated with the county’s diverse
annual yields. Among the myriad of crops grown in Jefferson County, vegetable seeds, grass seeds, garlic,
wheat, alfalfa, potatoes, oil crops, and flower seeds are the most common. Cultivating a hybrid carrot seed
is particularly popular and lucrative in Jefferson County. Approximately 85 percent of hybrid carrot seeds
planted in the United States36 and 40 percent of the global market37 are grown within Jefferson County
and nearby counties. More than 4,700 acres of hybrid carrot seeds were planted in Jefferson County in
2013, grossing nearly $15 million.38
In Deschutes county, only 110 acres of carrot and vegetable seeds were grown in 2013. However, other
specialty crops are grown in Deschutes County, defined as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and
horticulture and nursery crops (including floriculture)39, as well as traditional crops like hay and other
grains (Figure 12). In total, in Jefferson County, an average of 12,981 acres of select specialty crops were
farmed per year between 2006 and 2013 including vegetable seeds, grass seeds, and other field crops.
During the same time period, Deschutes County planted an average of 239 acres of specialty crops per
year.40
Given the variation in the amount and type of irrigated cropland in Deschutes and Jefferson counties, it is
unsurprising that the value of crop commodities sold in Jefferson County far exceeds that of Deschutes
County. From 2000 to 2012, commodity sales of crops in Jefferson County averaged around $43 million
per year, in real dollars. During this same time period, crop commodity sales in Deschutes County
averaged $11.7 million.41 When taking livestock sales into account, commodity sales averaged $55
million for Jefferson County per year and $20 million per year in Deschutes County from 2000 to 2012.
At the same time, the highest crop and livestock sales for both counties was in 2012, when Jefferson
County generated nearly $75 million and Deschutes County grossed more than $26 million (Figure 13).
As a percentage of total gross sales, including both crops and livestock, 77 percent of Jefferson County’s
Figure 11: Percent of Irrigated Land in Pasture vs. Cropland in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 12
agricultural revenue came from crops and 23 percent came from livestock. In Deschutes County, gross
sales were shared evenly between crops and livestock, with 51 percent coming from crops and 49 percent
from livestock sales.42
In estimating the larger economic impacts of agricultural products generated by Deschutes and Jefferson
counties, Oregon State University Extension applies a multiplier to measure the total economic impact of
agricultural products sold in each county. According to their calculations, between 2000 to 2012, an
Figure 13: Value of Crops and Livestock in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR.
Figure 12: Total Acres of Specialty Crops Harvested in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 13
average of $274.5 million was contributed annually by Deschutes and Jefferson counties to the Central
Oregon economy.43 During this time period, agricultural values were at their highest in Deschutes and
Jefferson counties in 2012, yielding more than $351 million in that year alone; commodity sales were at
their lowest in 2002 at $215.2 million. When total economic impacts are disaggregated between the two
counties, Jefferson County commodity sales resulted in an economic impact more than twice that of
Deschutes County, averaging almost $194 million in contrast to $80.5 million (Figure 14). According to
the most recent figures in 2012, gross income from agricultural commodity sales in Jefferson County
contributed more than $260 million to the Central Oregon economy, compared to $90 million from
agricultural commodity sales in Deschutes County.44 As the larger and more diverse producer, Jefferson
County consistently outperforms Deschutes County in terms of agricultural sales and economic revenue.
Despite volatility in the market, agriculture remains an important way of life for many residents of
Deschutes and especially Jefferson counties. In Deschutes County, farming has become less of an
economic mainstay as other forms of employment offer higher paying wages and greater long-term
security. By contrast, agriculture is vital to the economy and sociocultural fabric of Jefferson County.
Farms are often multi-generational family operations, and while the county may not be adding new farms
each year, they are not losing farms either. The tradition of farming in Jefferson County cultivates a
highly productive agricultural industry with at times high profit returns.
V. WATER USE PRACTICES
During recent decades, demographic and economic shifts have shaped land use patterns in Deschutes and
Jefferson counties in distinctive ways. In comparison to Deschutes County, the vast majority of
agricultural land in Jefferson County is dedicated to growing a wide assortment of crops and in particular
hybrid carrot seed. While also irrigating a large land area, Jefferson County has fewer farms producing
substantially higher yields and subsequent gross profit. Further, farmers in Deschutes County divert 60
Figure 14: Average Total Economic Impact from Agricultural Sales in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, OR.
(2000-2012)
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 14
percent more water from the Deschutes River compared to Jefferson County farmers, generating very
different agricultural and economic outcomes.45
As senior water rights holders, farmers in Deschutes County are afforded priority access to irrigation
water, which is increasingly used for farming activities centered around amenities.46 In downstream
Jefferson County, farmers with junior water rights depend on irrigation water from the Deschutes River
for their livelihood yet the reliability and consistency of this water is uncertain. The disparate allocation
of water rights in contrast to the value of water used on the ground makes it challenging for Jefferson
County irrigators to plan for short- and long-term cropping needs.
Irrigation Efficiency and Water Conservation
Further exacerbating water security issues across the Upper Deschutes River Basin is water loss resulting
from on-farm and canal evaporation, seepage, and other forms of leakage due to inefficient conveyance
systems. Up to 95 percent of all the water diverted from the Deschutes River occurs at the Central Oregon
canal and the North Canal Dam in Bend, including natural flows as well as stored releases.47 This water is
channeled to the various irrigation districts through a labyrinth of canals and pipelines. Unlined canals are
exposed to high losses as water can easily seep into the ground. Lined canals are effective if the whole
canal is covered and there is no deterioration in the lining, which is difficult to maintain. On average,
seepage losses for the Upper Deschutes River range from 30 to 50 percent of total diversions. In other
words, only half to two-thirds of every gallon of water diverted from the river will make it to the fields.48
Seepage, evaporation, and other forms of leakage in canals and on-farm losses are ubiquitous among the
seven irrigation districts and totals around 336,000 acre-feet (AF) per year. In 2001, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) found that the North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) was among the lowest of
the seven irrigation districts for water lost to canal seepage, averaging around 2.1 AF of water loss per
acre annually.49 Alternatively, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) averaged higher at 3.81 AF, and
Arnold District and Swalley District reported much higher seepage loss at 7.00 AF and 11.22 AF
respectively.50
In response, a number of water conservation projects have been implemented during the past decade
across the Upper Deschutes River Basin. Most common among these has been lateral piping projects
intended to improve water conveyance efficiency and augment instream flows.51 As of 2006, more than
43 miles of piping and canal lining has replaced traditional canal systems to transport water from the river
to each irrigation district. Based on estimates of the water conservation projects with reliable data, at least
45,360 AF or 126.53 cfs of irrigated water has been saved annually within the seven irrigation districts
plus the Three Sisters Irrigation District. This figure is likely much higher but a lack of data makes it
difficult to get a more accurate assessment of total water savings. The total costs to develop these
conservation projects, distributed among all of the irrigation districts, totaled around $15 million.52
Several large-scale water conservation projects have been proposed for future implementation in the
Upper Deschutes River Basin. Involving nearly 125 miles of new piping and canal lining, these proposed
water conservation projects could save up to 110,268 AF of water per year by preventing inadvertent
water loss through seepage and evaporation. According to a 2006 report by Newton and Pearle, the costs
to develop and maintain the projects were estimated to be around $100 million.53 More recently, the
COID has proposed two new piping projects with the potential to conserve 82,752 AF of water per year,
and cost an estimated $400 million.54
Another cost-effective and immediate approach in mitigating water loss is on-farm conservation
measures. These include switching from flood irrigation to pressurized sprinkler systems, upgrading
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 15
nozzles in sprinklers, utilizing micro irrigation techniques, like drip systems, and applying weather-
control systems to better match water demand with crop need.55 Of the total amount of 336,000 AF of
irrigated water lost through seepage and other forms of leakage, 166,560 AF or roughly half is from
inefficient on-farm irrigation methods.56 On-farm losses are by far the lowest in the NUID (94 percent
mean irrigation efficiency) and highest in the Central Oregon Irrigation District (43 percent mean
irrigation efficiency) (Table 1).57
Downstream irrigators in Jefferson County, who largely constitute the NUID, are especially efficient in
water consumption because they have adapted to increasingly unpredictable irrigation flows. The two
principal methods of irrigation used in the NUID include surface and sprinkler methods. During the past
several decades, sprinkler irrigation systems which are around 20 percent more efficient have replaced
traditional methods such as flood irrigation. By 2011, 65 percent of the district’s irrigation involved
sprinkler methods.58
Further, many sprinkler irrigation systems in the NUID have
recently been converted from traditional gravity application
methods to pressurized pumps. Nearly 95 percent of the
sprinkler-irrigated cropland in the district is pressurized by
pumping.59 Low-pressure pumping and the use of center pivot
systems are some of the most efficient irrigation methods
available, at 85 to 90 percent efficiency or higher.60 By
contrast, in the COID where irrigation water is more plentiful,
approximately 60 percent of the irrigation district users
continue to apply the original method of flood irrigation.61
Unlike sprinkler systems, flood irrigation is only 30 to 45
percent efficient because much of the diverted water is lost to
evaporation and leakage.62
Drip irrigation systems are some of the most efficient watering
methods available (Image 1). Due to its precision application
on the ground, drip irrigation is also known as micro or trickle
irrigation and uses 20 to 50 percent less water than
conventional irrigation systems.63 While installing the drip
system can be time consuming and costly upfront, water
efficiency can average around 90 to 95 percent.64
In Jefferson County, drip irrigation is used alongside pressurized pumps to irrigate the most land with the
least water loss. If similar or other on-farm conservation measures were applied across all the districts, it’s
estimated an additional 112,410 to 146,698 AF of water could be saved annually.65 Opportunities for the
greatest improvement in water efficiency on the farm include installing canal lining and lateral piping to
Table 1: Percent Water Efficiency Use Per Year by Irrigation District, Upper Deschutes River Basin.
Image 1: Example of a Drip Irrigation System
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 16
reduce seepage loss, converting surface systems to sprinkler irrigation systems, combining furrow
irrigation with a pumpback system, repairing outdated flood irrigation systems and broken sprinkler
gaskets, and conducting other operational and maintenance upgrades.
A number of district-wide water conservation measures have been proposed for future implementation on
individual farms. These projects generally include improvements in the delivery and distribution of water
such as canal lining, extended pipeline construction, and improved collaboration between multiple users.
Other proposed on-farm water conservation projects address the need for improved support tools, such as
online scheduling applications and digital monitoring of water usage and flow levels, energy audits, tiered
rate structures, and other financial and administrative mechanisms.
VI. CONCLUSION
The differing development trajectories in Deschutes and Jefferson counties influence land and water use
patterns across the region. Despite their adjacency to one another, Deschutes County outpaces Jefferson
County with respect to population growth, employment trends, and most other socioeconomic indicators.
Deschutes County’s diverse workforce and growing appeal as a recreation and migration destination
correlate with strong increases in economic performance, particularly in services-related industries such
as real estate, trade, and finance. In Jefferson County, agriculture remains a vital component of the
economy and local land use base. While population and employment trends remain relatively unchanged,
agricultural production has increased in the county as farms are becoming larger and more efficient.
In Jefferson County, parcel sizes have increased as farms consolidate and new farmland is incorporated
into existing agricultural operations. In contrast to Deschutes County, the 59,000 acres irrigated by the
Deschutes River in Jefferson County is almost entirely cropland. Due to the diversity of crops and high
returns on specialty crops like carrot seed, crop commodity sales yield more than $40 million a year in the
county.66 The impact of Jefferson County’s agricultural production is substantial to Oregon’s economy
and contributes an average of $194 million per year, in contrast to $80.5 million generated by Deschutes
County’s agricultural sales.67
The asymmetric relationship between water consumption and economic yield in Deschutes and Jefferson
counties is reinforced with an existing system of water rights. As senior water rights holders, irrigators
with Deschutes County’s COID have priority access to water from the Deschutes River yet are the least
efficient water users among the region’s seven irrigation districts. Alternatively, farmers with Jefferson
County’s NUID are junior water rights holders and average nearly 94 percent water efficiency, the highest
among the seven irrigation districts within the Upper Deschutes River Basin.68
The uncertainty of consistent water flow, especially during dry summer months, has compelled NUID
irrigators to integrate water conservation efficiency measures such as drip irrigation, canal lining, and
closed pressurized pipelines into their farming practices. In doing so, NUID irrigators are using less water
to irrigate a greater amount of productive land. At the same time, there are no mechanisms in place to
encourage improved water use by irrigators in Deschutes County who irrigate smaller, less productive
land. Introducing incentives to support on-farm conservation measures and other water-saving activities
in Deschutes County could help alleviate insecurities downstream for NUID irrigators.
The water conservation strategies employed by NUID farmers demonstrate practical on-the-ground
solutions to reducing water loss from seepage, evaporation, and conveyance. Water use practices and
conservation measures applied by NUID provide a useful example of potential water savings in the
region. If adopted region-wide, these measures could maximize the benefits of irrigated water from the
Deschutes River.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 17
VII. REFERENCE
1 Aylward B. 2006. Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts in
Central Oregon. DWA Final Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Growth-Urbanization-and-Land-Use-Change.pdf.
2 Oregon Water Resources. Gage data for COID diversions for the years 1992-2011 was downloaded from gages
accessible on the Oregon Water Resources Website. Gage #14069500 and Gage #4066500 were combined; Gage
#14069700 and Gage #14069699 were subtracted as they are deliveries through the same system to other districts.
Gage data for NUID diversions for the years 1992-2011 was downloaded from Gage #14069000 and Gage
#14069699. Daily flows were converted from cfs to acre-feet (AF) (cfs x 1.98). This number represents the median
rather than the mean to reduce the influence of outliers. Data available online:
http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_near_real_time/.
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture. Washington
D.C. County-Level Data. Water efficiencies have presumably increased since the originally cited 1997 study
4 Oregon State University Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center. 2016. Local Ag Statistics 2006-2013.
Available online: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/coarc/local-ag-statistics.
5 Oregon State University. 2011. Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic
Information Office. Also see Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper.
6 Newton D., and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf.; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.1997. Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study,
Special Report, Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties, Oregon. Water efficiencies have presumably increased
since the originally cited 1997 study by the U.S. BoR. A new study by the Basin Study Working Group is currently
underway and is expected to revise the efficiency estimates for individual irrigation districts.
7 Aylward B. 2006. Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts in
Central Oregon. DWA Final Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Growth-Urbanization-and-Land-Use-Change.pdf.
8 Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Upper%20Deschutes%20River%20Background%20Paper_FINAL_Sep12.pdf.
9 Hardin-Davis, Inc. 1991. Instreamflow Study for the Deschutes River above Bend. Bend, OR: USDA Forest
Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend Ranger District; Deschutes Water Planning Initiative. 2012. Deschutes
River Conservancy. Available online: http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/cwmp/docs/2012-
examples/DeschutesRiverConservancy.pdf.
10 Oregon Water Resources Department. 2014. Hydrographics Data Results. Monthly Streamflow for Deschutes R
BL Wickiup Reservoir NR La Pine, Oregon. Station ID: 14056500. Available Online:
http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_report/data_Results.aspx?station_nbr=14056500&start_date=06/01/1938
&end_date=09/30/2014&record_type=mdfMonthly_monthly_statistics_computed_for_period_of_record&tolerance
=0&fdcCase=usgs&record_status=PUB&nbr_days=14&nbr_max=10.
11 Shelton ML, Fridirici R. 2001. Water Supply and Climate Change in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. In
APCG Yearbook (63). Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press. Available online:
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/journals/apcg/yb63p077.pdf.
12 Barr BR, Journet ARP, Leonard JL. 2010. Projected Future Conditions and Sector Background Information for
the Deschutes River Basin of Central Oregon. Ashland (OR): ClimateWise. Available online:
http://www.forestlegacies.org/images/stories/pdfs/Publications/ClimateWise/Deschutes_ProjectionsSectorReport_10
1230.pdf.
13 Aylward B. 2006. Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts in
Central Oregon. DWA Final Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Growth-Urbanization-and-Land-Use-Change.pdf.
14 Central Oregon Irrigation District. 2011. Water Management Conservation Plan. Available online:
http://filepickup.wrd.state.or.us/files/Publications/WMCP/Requested%20Files/Approved%20Agricultural%20WMC
Ps/COID_Final%20%20WMCP_2%2027%2012.pdf.
15 Technically, the Walker Basin is a cooperative water users’ association (La Pine Cooperative Water Association)
and not a formal irrigation district. However, it does divert water from the Little Deschutes River and was therefore
included in this report. The Three Sisters Irrigation District is largely located in Deschutes County, although a small
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 18
portion extends north into Jefferson County. The Tumalo Irrigation District draws primarily from the Deschutes
River but also is served by its tributary, the Tumalo Creek. Source: Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Deschutes
Water Planning Initiative. Available online: http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/cwmp/docs/2012-
examples/DeschutesRiverConservancy.pdf.
16 Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Upper%20Deschutes%20River%20Background%20Paper_FINAL_Sep12.pdf. See
also Aylward B. 2006. Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts
in Central Oregon. DWA Final Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Growth-Urbanization-and-Land-Use-Change.pdf.
17 Turner B, Perry G. 1997. Agriculture to Instream Water Transfers under Uncertain Water Availability: A Case
Study of Deschutes River, Oregon. J Agr Resour Econ. 22(2):208-221.
18 Ibid.
19 Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Upper%20Deschutes%20River%20Background%20Paper_FINAL_Sep12.pdf.
20 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of
Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. View all data sources of Economic Profile System at:
http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/tech-info/.
21 Njus E. 2015. Bend among nation’s fastest-growing metros, Census Bureau reports. The Oregonian, March 26,
2015. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/bend_among_fastest-growing_met.html.
22 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Census Bureau, Population Division, Washington, D.C.
23 Ibid.
24 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington
D.C. Table CA25N.
25 U.S. Department of Labor. 2010. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics,
Washington, D.C.
26 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington
D.C. Table CA25.
27 Ibid.
28 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington
D.C. Table CA30
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Oregon Water Resources. Gage #14069500, 4066500, 14069700, and 14069699 (NUID); Gage #14069000 and
14069699 (COID). (See reference #2 above for methodologies.) Available online:
http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_near_real_time/. Of the 58,868 acres served by the North Unit Irrigation
District, 50,050 acres are served by the Deschutes River and the remaining 8,818 acres are served by the Crooked
River. Source: Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Deschutes Water Planning Initiative. Available online:
http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/cwmp/docs/2012-examples/DeschutesRiverConservancy.pdf.
32 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture.
Washington D.C. County-Level Data.
33 Ibid.
34 Aylward B. 2006. Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts in
Central Oregon. DWA Final Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/Growth-Urbanization-and-Land-Use-Change.pdf.
35 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture.
Washington D.C. County-Level Data.
36 Jefferson County Seed Growers Association. 2016. Carrot Seed. Available online:
http://www.jeffcoseed.com/crops/carrot-seed.
37 McDonald J. 2006. Carrot seed harvest reaps big profits. The Bulletin, Sept. 4, 2006. Available online:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/1548859-151/carrot-seed-harvest-reaps-big-profits.
38 Oregon State University Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center. 2013. Local Ag Statistics. Available
online: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/coarc/local-ag-statistics.
39 Defined in the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465, Section 3), as amended by the 2008
farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). See USDA, “USDA Definition of Specialty
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 19
Crop,” http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5082113. Excludes peanuts, other
commodities.
40 Oregon State University Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center. 2016. Local Ag Statistics 2006-2013.
Available online: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/coarc/local-ag-statistics.
41 Oregon State University. 2012. Extension Economic Information Office. Agricultural Commodity Sales. County-
level Charts for Deschutes and Jefferson Counties.
42 Ibid.
43 Oregon State University. 2011. Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic
Information Office. Also see Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper.
44 Ibid.
45 Oregon Water Resources. Gage #14069500, 4066500, 14069700, and 14069699 (NUID); Gage #14069000 and
14069699 (COID) (See reference #2 above for methodologies.) Available online:
http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_near_real_time/.
46 Turner B, Perry G. 1997. Agriculture to Instream Water Transfers under Uncertain Water Availability: A Case
Study of Deschutes River, Oregon. J Agr Resour Econ. 22(2):208-221.
47 Oregon State University. 2011. Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic
Information Office. Also see Deschutes River Conservancy. 2012. Upper Deschutes River Background Paper.
48 Newton D., and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf.
49 Gannett MW, Lite Jr. KE, Morgan DS, Collins CA. 2001. Ground-water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin,
Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162. Available online:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri004162/pdf/WRIR004162.pdf.
50 Ibid.
51 Newton D, and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf.
52 Ibid. pg. 5.
53 Ibid. pg. 25.
54 Central Oregon Irrigation District. 2016. Preliminary System Improvement Plan. Executive Summary. September
19, 2016. Available online: http://coid.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/COID_ExecutiveSummary_online_singlesNEW-1.pdf.
55 Ibid. pg. 9.; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.1997. Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study, Special
Report, Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties, Oregon.
56 Gannett MW, Lite Jr. KE, Morgan DS, Collins CA. 2001. Ground-water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin,
Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162. Available online:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri004162/pdf/WRIR004162.pdf.
57 Newton D., and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf. See footnote #6 for more details.
58 North Unit Irrigation District Water Management and Conservation Plan. September 2011. Prepared by North
Unit Irrigation District and Black Rock Consulting.
59 Ibid.
60 Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB). 2011. Cost-Effectiveness of Improved Irrigation Efficiency and
Water Transactions for Instream Flow for Fish. Document IEAB 2011-2. Portland (OR): Northwest Power and
Conservation Council.
61 Central Oregon Irrigation District. 2011. Water Management Conservation Plan. Available online:
http://filepickup.wrd.state.or.us/files/Publications/WMCP/Requested%20Files/Approved%20Agricultural%20WMC
Ps/COID_Final%20%20WMCP_2%2027%2012.pdf.
62 Newton D., and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf.
63 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WaterSense. 2016. Water-Savings Technologies. Available online:
https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/outdoor/tech.html.
64 Ibid.
HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 20
65 Newton D and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf.
66 Oregon State University. 2012. Extension Economic Information Office. Agricultural Commodity Sales. County-
level Charts for Deschutes and Jefferson Counties.
67 Oregon State University. 2011. Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic
Information Office.
68 Newton D and Perle M. 2006. Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis and Prioritization. DWA Final
Report. Bend (OR): Deschutes Water Alliance. Available online: http://www.deschutesriver.org/Irrigation-District-
Water-Efficiency.pdf; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.1997. Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study,
Special Report, Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties, Oregon.
QuickFacts
Deschutes County, Oregon
QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more.
Table
All Topics
Population Estimates, July 1 2021, (V2021) NA
PEOPLE
Population
Population Estimates, July 1 2021, (V2021) NA
Population estimates base, April 1, 2020, (V2021) NA
Population, percent change - April 1, 2020 (estimates base) to July 1, 2021, (V2021) NA
Population, Census, April 1, 2020 198,253
Population, Census, April 1, 2010 157,733
Age and Sex
Persons under 5 years, percent 5.0%
Persons under 18 years, percent 19.8%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 20.5%
Female persons, percent 50.5%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent 94.1%
Black or African American alone, percent (a)0.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent (a)1.1%
Asian alone, percent (a)1.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent (a)0.2%
Two or More Races, percent 2.8%
Hispanic or Latino, percent (b)8.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 86.8%
Population Characteristics
Veterans, 2015-2019 14,641
Foreign born persons, percent, 2015-2019 4.6%
Housing
Housing units, July 1, 2019, (V2019)92,795
Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2015-2019 67.0%
An official website of the United States government
Deschutes
County, Oregon
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2015-2019 $364,600
Median selected monthly owner costs -with a mortgage, 2015-2019 $1,702
Median selected monthly owner costs -without a mortgage, 2015-2019 $542
Median gross rent, 2015-2019 $1,208
Building permits, 2020 2,338
Families & Living Arrangements
Households, 2015-2019 74,397
Persons per household, 2015-2019 2.49
Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2015-2019 82.1%
Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2015-2019 7.2%
Computer and Internet Use
Households with a computer, percent, 2015-2019 95.5%
Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2015-2019 88.6%
Education
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2015-2019 93.7%
Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2015-2019 35.4%
Health
With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2015-2019 8.4%
Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent 7.9%
Economy
In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2015-2019 63.1%
In civilian labor force, female, percent of population age 16 years+, 2015-2019 59.0%
Total accommodation and food services sales, 2012 ($1,000)(c)435,585
Total health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, 2012 ($1,000)(c)1,114,042
Total manufacturers shipments, 2012 ($1,000)(c)801,757
Total retail sales, 2012 ($1,000)(c)2,476,596
Total retail sales per capita, 2012 (c)$15,262
Transportation
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16 years+, 2015-2019 19.5
Income & Poverty
Median household income (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $67,043
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $35,507
Persons in poverty, percent 8.1%
BUSINESSES
Businesses
Total employer establishments, 2019 7,669
Total employment, 2019 71,896
Total annual payroll, 2019 ($1,000)3,199,202
1.1%
Total employment, percent change, 2018-2019
Total nonemployer establishments, 2018 19,388
All firms, 2012 20,214
Men-owned firms, 2012 10,481
Women-owned firms, 2012 6,486
Minority-owned firms, 2012 1,156
Nonminority-owned firms, 2012 18,150
Veteran-owned firms, 2012 1,930
Nonveteran-owned firms, 2012 17,029
GEOGRAPHY
Geography
Population per square mile, 2010 52.3
Land area in square miles, 2010 3,018.19
FIPS Code 41017
About datasets used in this table
Value Notes
Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that may exist between different data sources.
Some estimates presented here come from sample data, and thus have sampling errors that may render some apparent differences between geographies statistically indistinguishable. Click the Quick Info icon to the left of each
row in TABLE view to learn about sampling error.
The vintage year (e.g., V2021) refers to the final year of the series (2020 thru 2021). Different vintage years of estimates are not comparable.
Fact Notes
(a)Includes persons reporting only one race
(c)Economic Census - Puerto Rico data are not comparable to U.S. Economic Census data
(b)Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories
Value Flags
-Either no or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest or upper interval of anopen ended distribution.
F Fewer than 25 firmsDSuppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
N Data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.
FN Footnote on this item in place of data
X Not applicable
S Suppressed; does not meet publication standards
NA Not available
Z Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.
CONNECT WITH US
29 results are available, use up and down arrow keys to navigate.
Accessibility |Information Quality |FOIA |Data Protection and Privacy Policy |U.S. Department of Commerce
PLANNING COMMISSION
WATER PANEL SERIES REPORT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97703-6005 www.deschutes.org/cd
(541) 388-6575 February 2019
2
Key Participants
PLANNING COMMISSION Dale Crawford - At Large ( Chair) - Water Panel Subcommittee Maggie Kirby - Bend Area (Vice Chair) - Water Panel Subcommittee Jim Beeger - Bend Area - Water Panel Subcommittee Steve Swisher - Sisters Area Hugh Palcic - South County Jessica Kieras - Redmond Area Les Hudson - At Large PANELISTS Kyle Gorman - Oregon Water Resource Department Stephen B. Gingerich, Ph.D - U.S. Geological Survey Oregon Water Science Center Bridget Moran - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brett Hodgson - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mark Buckley - ECONorthwest Mylen Bohle - Oregon State University Extension Leslie Clark - Central Oregon Irrigation District Margaret Matter - Oregon Department of Agriculture Bill Duerden - City of Redmond Craig Horell - Central Oregon Irrigation District Mike Taylor - Coalition for the Deschutes Adam Sussman - GSI Water Solutions DESCHUTES COUNTY LONG RANGE PLANNING STAFF Nick Lelack, AICP - Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP - Planning Manager Matt Martin - Associate Planner Nicole Mardell - Associate Planner
3
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Meeting #1: Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin ........................................................................................... 5 Meeting #2: Environmental and Economic Impacts ................................................................................................ 6 Meeting #3: Agricultural Water Consumption and Efficiency ................................................................................ 7 Meeting #4: Projections and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 8 Additional Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 9-14 Photo Source: Central Oregon Irrigation District
Table of Contents
4
Executive Summary
Purpose
The Deschutes County Planning Commission is the County’s citizen involvement committee responsible for carrying out a comprehensive planning program, using public input to coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions, planning bodies, and districts. Their role is to advise the Board of County Commissioners on citizen involvement programs and study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare (DCC 2.52.100). Realizing the impact of water use and water law in land use and development proceedings, the Planning Commissioners requested staff to organize a series of expert panels within the field of water management. The information gained from each panel of experts could then be used to better inform the Planning Commission, general public, and Board of County Commissioners, in land use decision making. The Commission determined the need for four separate panels:
Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin
Environmental and Economic Impacts
Agricultural Water Consumption and Efficiency
Projections and Planning A Water Panel Subcommittee was formed to develop the agenda and identify speakers for each panel. Summaries and notes from each panel are found in pages 5 to 8 of this report. Although the panelists represented a diversity of individuals, bodies, and authorities within the agricultural industry, environmental nonprofits, and government entities, three key issues and themes rose to prominence throughout the series. Key Issues and Themes
WATER LAW Current laws regulating water strictly limit flexibility in water use and management, and are little changed in principle from the original regulations developed in the early twentieth century. Comments from almost all panelists denoted a need to revise Oregon’s water laws to reflect current (and future) conditions; to re-examine the principles of allocation (for agriculture, fisheries, municipalities, environmental groups and other sectors), the efficiency of delivery, flexibility in use and monitoring and enforcement.
STATEWIDE WATER POLICY Many stakeholders are involved in water management including sovereign tribal nations, governmental entities, nonprofits, irrigation districts, private consultants, and water users. Each group has identified interests and perspectives that may align or contradict others, particularly in the areas of advocacy regarding the current system for holding water rights and uses where water rights may be under– or over-allocated. Although improvements could be made in the current system by voluntary collaboration or specific litigation, a larger-scale systematic change is needed, potentially through a statewide governmental review to revisit and modernize water use priorities, allocation, regulation, and management.
EDUCATION AND FUNDING Panelists offered examples of outreach and educational programs that have proven to be successful in promoting efficient water use in agricultural, commercial, and residential markets. In order to achieve larger-scale change, financial resources are needed, both to improve efficiency in water delivery to end uses (e.g. canal piping) but also to educate water users on efficient practices.
5
Meeting 1: Hydrology of the Upper
Deschutes Basin
The Planning Commission convened the first panel to examine water availability and consumption in the Upper Deschutes River Basin. The group discussed aquifer structure, ground and surface water interaction, reservoir storage capacity, water law and water rights, impacts of climate change, monitoring data and mapping, and water projections. Additional background on Oregon’s water use system can be found in the Upper Deschutes Basin Study funded by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2018.
A few key insights from this discussion include:
ROLE OF OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) regulates and measures water supply at a statewide scale. There are five regional managers in the basin; each region has two water masters responsible for regulating water use. As of 1988, no new water rights could be issued in the basin due to a lawsuit limiting water withdraws affecting the free flowing character of lower Deschutes River (Diack vs. City of Portland). Therefore, property owners seeking water rights must complete a water rights transfer, with expensive market rates per acre-foot.
ADVOCACY AND CONSERVATION Oregon experiences water restoration achievements greater than any other state. The Deschutes River Conservancy, established in 1998, preserved the first instream flow right in Oregon along Whychus Creek. Recently, the Oregon Spotted Frog was listed to the federal Endangered Species Act (further details on page 6). This listing triggered a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation districts, which compelled the districts and the City of Prineville to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY Per USGS reporting, municipal water use over a 50-year period is approximately 16,000 acre-feet. Comparatively, irrigation water use over a 50-year period is approximately 724,000 acre-feet. Water levels are declining primarily due to climate change (70% loss), pumping (20% loss), and lining of water transmission lines and canals (10%). Approximately 50% of diverted water is lost through seepage and only a fraction is recaptured instream. Moving forward, there is a need for upgrading irrigation delivery systems such as canals, on-site agricultural irrigation equipment and incentivizing efficient water practices.
DATE
March 8, 2018
PANELISTS
Kyle Gorman South Central Region Manager, Oregon Water Resources Department Stephen B. Gingerich, Ph.D Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Oregon Water Science Center
VIDEO LINK
http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1963&Format=Agenda
BASIN STUDY LINK
https://www.deschutesriver.org/what-we-are-doing/upper-deschutes-basin-study/basin-study-documents/
6
Meeting 2: Environmental and Economic
Impacts of Water Use
The second panel focused on the environmental and economic impacts of water use. Panelists discussed the relationship between water, wildlife habitat, recreational activities, and associated economic benefits within the Upper Deschutes River Basin.
A few key insights from this discussion include:
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP) An HCP is a tool used between the federal government and cooperating partners to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) is working with eight irrigation districts and the City of Prineville on an HCP to prevent litigation associated with potential damage to Oregon Spotted Frog and Bull Trout populations and their habitats. USFW is responsible for monitoring and quantifying impacts to protected species, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is responsible for protecting sensitive animals not listed as endangered. Panelists explained that restoration of an ecological system is 10-20 more expensive than initial preservation, therefore USFW and ODFW are proactive in promoting preservation of sensitive environments.
PARTNERSHIPS A shared vision among all stakeholders is to modernize irrigation systems to reduce loss and promote higher instream flow return. Irrigation canals experience 40% to 60% loss. Upgrading systems can aid business operations of irrigation districts and stream flow for habitat preservation.
RECREATION The Upper Deschutes Basin includes quality angling and hunting opportunities, including premier trout fishing near the upper section of the Deschutes River. Revenues from hunting permits primarily fund ODFW as it is a user based department. Moderating stream flow (to mitigate winter low water and summer wash out) and conserving native species can help maintain the outdoor recreation economy Central Oregon has built.
DATE
April 12, 2018
PANELISTS
Bridget Moran Bend Field Officer Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jennifer O’Reilly Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brett Hodgson Fish Biologist Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mark Buckley, Ph.D Partner, ECONorthwest
VIDEO LINK
http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=2005&Format=Agenda
7
Meeting 3: Agricultural Water
Consumption and Efficiency
The third panel of the series was originally slated to discuss water consumption and efficiency in all industries. Per information provided in the two previous panels, the Planning Commission decided to focus on water use within the agricultural industry, as it is the largest water consumer in Deschutes County and Central Oregon as a region.
A few key insights from this discussion include:
AGRICULTURE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Deschutes County has the highest number of individual farms in Central Oregon (1,000), compared to Crook (680) and Jefferson (480) counties. Most of these farms are between 0.5 and 10 acres. The oldest water rights in the area are from 1870-1880 and were initially allocated for the production of potato crops. Throughout time, crops have changed based on disease and popularity, including chickpeas, hemp, wheat, rye, alfalfa, marijuana, vineyards, etc. As water rights are tied to the original crop grown on the property, panelists described the difficulty in amending water rights to reflect water demands associated with new crops.
EFFICIENT IRRIGATION Since no new water rights can be allocated, there is a premium for maintaining water rights on a property for future sale, even if the primary use of the property is not agriculture. A common issue in Deschutes County is misinformation on beneficial use, wherein many farmers use flood irrigation, water open pasture areas including rock and poor soils, and use irrigation systems incorrectly. Changes to water law could address some of the issues associated with water right transfers and beneficial use. Education could also lead to applying water efficiently to beneficial uses with modernized technology.
TRENDS IN EFFICIENCY OSU Extension works with the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Central Oregon Irrigation District to provide onsite education to farmers as well as larger policy and programmatic elements. A traditional center pivot irrigation system averages 50-85% efficiency, whereas a dragline pivot system averages 98% efficiency. Even minor upgrades to older irrigation systems, such as replacement of valves, can result in an 18% increase in irrigation efficiency.
DATE
August 23, 2018
PANELISTS
Mylen Bohle Area Extension Agronomist Oregon State University Extension Leslie Clark Director of Water Rights Central Oregon Irrigation District Margaret Matter Water Resource Specialist/Program Lead Oregon Department of Agriculture
VIDEO LINK
http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=2048&Format=Agenda
8
Meeting 4: Projections and Planning
The fourth and final panel of the series focused on planning for water use in growing communities. Panelists discussed their procedures for projecting water supply and demand, interagency collaboration, successes in innovative programming, and barriers preventing modernization of water management policies.
A few key insights from this discussion include:
PROGRAM EFFICIENCY Municipal capital improvement plans (CIPs) estimate growth by using land use assumptions. The largest urban water uses are typically greenspace and park areas owned by a municipality, park district, or school district. Bend and Redmond utilize two of the top rated water efficiency programs in the state. Redmond has a WaterHawk program that detects leaks and water losses, while also helping users understand their consumption levels. Support from elected officials is needed to implement these programs as minimal grants are available.
BASIN STUDY WORK GROUP Using Bureau of Reclamation funding, a 47-member working group recently completed the Upper Deschutes Basin Study (link on page 5) . The study provided a ‘state of the basin’ and a shared vision for the future, but the study is not designed as a plan to identify any specific actions or suggested partnerships. Previously, the Deschutes Water Alliance served as an impartial convener for all water management stakeholders, but the group is no longer able to serve in the role. Coordination and partnerships among irrigation districts, nonprofits, local governments, sovereign tribal nations, and other interested parties are needed to effectively advocate for changes to water law and to identify funding for system upgrades and efficiency programs.
CHALLENGES IN WATER MANAGEMENT There is a scarcity of water rights in the Deschutes Basin. This drives up the price and value of existing water rights held by patrons. Existing irrigation canals are often seen as valuable aesthetic resources to abutting property owners. Piping projects have recently experienced opposition as owners pursue historic designations. Climate change is also impacting water levels in the Deschutes River, but there is very little room for adaptation at the local level. There is a need for state-led changes to water law.
DATE
December 13, 2018
PANELISTS
Bill Duerden Public Works Director City of Redmond Craig Horrell Manager Central Oregon Irrigation District Mike Taylor Board President Coalition for the Deschutes Adam Sussman Principal Water Resources Consultant GSI Water Resources
VIDEO LINK
http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=2194&Format=Agenda
9
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Panel Comments
Hydrology of the
Upper Deschutes
basin
(March 5, 2018)
Kyle Gorman –
South Central Re-
gional Manager,
Oregon Water Re-
source Department
Stephen B. Gin-
gerich, Ph.D. - Re-
search Hydrologist,
U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Oregon Water
Science Center
OWRD regulates and measures water supply.
Mr. Gorman is 1 of 5 regional managers. He focuses on the Klamath, Deschutes, and Lake wa-
tersheds. There are two water masters in this area, each responsible for regulaƟng water use
based on the law of prior appropriaƟon.
The Deschutes River is a managed system. There are three reservoirs: Crescent, Crane, and
Wickiup and five irrigaƟon districts.
From 1962 to the mid-1980s, the middle Deschutes River only had 30 cfs during the summer.
A USGS 1998 water study broadened everyone’s understanding of how groundwater is Ɵed to
the Lower Deschutes River.
StarƟng in 1988, no new water rights could be issued in the Upper Deschutes basin due to a
lawsuit brought against the state (Diack vs. City of Portland, 306 Or 287, 299. 1998), which obli-
gated OWRD to limit water withdrawals if such use will diminish the free flowing character of
Scenic Waterways (Lower Deschutes River).
As a result, in the Deschutes Basin, new water rights must first miƟgate the use by improving
surface water flows. OWRD quanƟfies general zones for miƟgaƟon.
The Deschutes River Conservancy was established in 1996. In 1998, they preserved the first
instream flow right in Oregon along Whychus Creek. Oregon experiences restoraƟon achieve-
ments are greater than any other state in the West.
Municipal groundwater sources are predominantly groundwater.
The lisƟng of Oregon spoƩed frog to the federal Endangered Species Act triggered a lawsuit
against the Bureau of ReclamaƟon and irrigaƟon districts. A federal judge issued a hold for the
parƟes to explore collaboraƟon.
Prior to the ESA lisƟng, the ouƞlow out of Wickiup was 20 cfs ,and 5 cfs at Crescent. Today,
there is 1,000 cfs out of Wickiup and 20 to 30 cfs out of Crescent. Crane Prairie is being man-
aged for the spoƩed frog for spring and fall nursery. The lake levels remain between 2 and 3
feet.
From 2000 to 2008, DRC promoted instream flows. Over the last 5 to 10 years, interest has
leveled off.
Transferring irrigaƟon rights for miƟgaƟon are held by irrigaƟon districts based on a 2008 rul-
ing, Fort Vannoy IrrigaƟon district v. Water Resources Commission. The Oregon Supreme Court
held that irrigaƟon districts are the holders and owners of water rights beneficially applied by
its members but cerƟficated in the name of the district. The Court held that water rights, like
legal Ɵtle to other property, vests in the irrigaƟon district and are held by it in trust, are dedi-
cated and set apart for, the uses and purposes set forth in the IrrigaƟon District law. The Court
also held that the Board of Directors for the irrigaƟon district is authorized and empowered to
hold, use, acquire, manage and dispose of a water right as provided in the IrrigaƟon District
law. Private water rights are eligible for miƟgaƟon. However, there are few of them.
Facebook paid $15,000 (ac/Ō) for miƟgaƟon credits in Crook County. In Deschutes, miƟgaƟon
credits have sold for $2,000 (ac/Ō).
DRC operates temporary miƟgaƟon credits. They are leases. IrrigaƟon districts are supporƟve
because patrons are sƟll on their rolls.
10
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Hydrology of the
Upper Deschutes
Basin conƟnued
USGS is a non-regulatory agency that is recognized as the naƟon’s leading science agency.
In the mid-1990s, USGS published a series of reports addressing hydrology, geology and ground-
water recharge.
First model in 2000/2001 idenƟfied groundwater and surface water relaƟonship.
In 2017, USGS idenƟfied a state of the art model, examining different scenarios on groundwater
pumping impacts to stream flow.
Basin study modeling revealed that municipal use over a 50-year period uƟlizes only 16,000 ac/Ō,
in contrast to irrigaƟon use, which is 724,000 ac/Ō.
The upper Deschutes basin aquifer recharges at 3,800 cubic feet per second.
Groundwater wells are measured every quarter. There are 25 to 30 wells. Trends show water lev-
els declining.
The reason is due to climate change. It is esƟmated that 70% of the declines are due to climate,
20% to pumping; and 10% to lining (less water transmission loss) and other irrigaƟon efficiency
measures.
The federal Endangered Species Act represents the greatest threat to water use.
IrrigaƟon districts need to improve delivery systems to aid upper and middle Deschutes River
flows.
Patrons and IrrigaƟon Districts will need to change their aƫtudes related to water consumpƟon.
Recognizing that about 50% of the diverted water is lost through seepage and is a net loss to the
Upper and Middle Deschutes River (although a fracƟon is re-captured in the Lower Deschutes) it is
important that water delivery and use adapts to future need rather than be bound by historic
pracƟce; move away from flood irrigaƟon, improve efficiency of delivery and use to grow the
same crop with less water but preserve the individual ‘Water Right ‘ in whole, help under-
capitalized end users meet the cost of upgrade, pipe to an on demand system (this alone will re-
duce water demand by 20%), establish incenƟves for users that improve their water use efficien-
cy.The costs for upgrading irrigaƟon delivery systems is expensive.
Carey Water Rights allow one to divert enough water to meet delivery demand.
Panel Comments
11
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Panel Comments
Environmental and
Economic Impacts of
Water Use
(April 12, 2018)
Bridget Moran -
Bend Field Office
Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service;
Jennifer O’Reilly –
Biologist, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service;
BreƩ Hodgson - Fish
Biologist, Oregon
Department of Fish
and Wildlife; and
Mark Buckley, Ph.D
– Partner,
ECONorthwest
USFWS working with 8 irrigaƟon districts and Prineville on a Habitat ConservaƟon Plan. An HCP is a
tool to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act; it shields parƟes from liƟgaƟon, in this
case from injuring (take) the Oregon spoƩed frog and in the lower Deschutes River, bull trout.
An HCP lists acƟviƟes that effect the listed species. For example, irrigaƟon districts store and re-
lease water. Those two acƟviƟes can harm the frog. It can take years of negoƟaƟon. The lifespan
for an HCP can be 40 years.
It is a formal process that quanƟfies the effects of an operaƟon following the NaƟonal Environ-
mental Policy Act (EIS, public comment, publish draŌ and ulƟmately final publicaƟon).
Once an HCP is final, it offers parƟes relief/regulatory assurance with an incidental take permit as
long as they comply with the terms of the document. For irrigaƟon districts, there is certainty as
they invest in the long term maintenance and operaƟon of their faciliƟes.
Senator Merkley helped pass federal funding, PL5.66 that provides financial assistance to irrigaƟon
districts. For FY 2017 and 2018 there is a total of $300M to assist irrigaƟon districts modernize
their faciliƟes. It requires a 50% match from outside sources, which can include state and other
sources.
An HCP allows irrigaƟon districts to “minimize and miƟgate their impacts to spoƩed frog to the
maximum extent possible.”
Today, the Deschutes riverbed is 20% higher than normal (pre-irrigaƟon).
USFWS is responsible for quanƟfying the impacts to the spoƩed frog to protect, enhance, and op-
Ɵmally, recover the species.
Each HCP has biological goals and objecƟves to establish biological funcƟon to the greatest degree
possible.
There are benchmarks for federally lisƟng species. The ESA has definiƟons for plants and animals.
There is a five factor analysis/threat based approach.
ODFW is responsible for protecƟng sensiƟve plants and animals. When plants/animals experience
significant threats, USFWS will analyze those threats, calling for data, and if necessary iniƟate a
federal rule making process.
Oregon spoƩed frog is an indicator species for clean water, wetland viability, riparian health, and
ecological funcƟon.
PrioriƟzing sensiƟve species is budget driven and can be poliƟcal. Environmentalists sued USFWS
for not protecƟng sensiƟve species. The lawsuit was eventually seƩled, which led to the process of
lisƟng the spoƩed frog under ESA.
SpoƩed frog habitat is located in Wickiup Reservoir, Crane Prairie Reservoir, and the upper
Deschutes and LiƩle Deschutes Rivers.
Bull frogs are a significant threat to the spoƩed frog. They are recognized as a top 10 invasive spe-
cies.
USFWS has a safe harbor agreement with landowners to address impacts of bull frog lisƟng.
12
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Panel Comments
Environmental and
Economic Impacts
of Water Use
ConƟnued
It is more effecƟve to protect ecological systems than to restore them. RestoraƟon can be 10 to
20 Ɵmes more expensive.
ProtecƟng intact core areas for the spoƩed frog is essenƟal. It is an extraordinary planning op-
portunity.
IrrigaƟon canals experience 40% to 60% transmission loss.
One goal is to modernize irrigaƟon systems which allows surface water to return as instream
flow.
Conserving naƟve species provides quality angling and hunƟng opportuniƟes.
State conservaƟon goals can conflict with recreaƟonal goals.
The upper Deschutes River is a premier trout fishery. There are a lot of opportuniƟes to improve
water quality and quanƟty for the whole ecosystem.
ModeraƟng stream flows improve ecological funcƟon.
ODFW is a user based department. Revenue is focused on one spectrum, hunƟng, while there
are significant demands associated with habitat conservaƟon.
There are opportuniƟes to share water and move it around. Thirty percent of COID’s patrons
flood irrigate.
Short term tools for irrigaƟon districts are fallowing farms and leasing water for instream use.
13
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Panel Comments
Agricultural Water
ConsumpƟon and
Efficiency
(August 23, 2018)
Mylen Bohle - Area
Extension Agrono-
mist, Oregon State
University Exten-
sion
Leslie Clark - Direc-
tor of Water Rights,
Central Oregon Irri-
gaƟon District
Margaret MaƩer –
Water Resource
Specialist, Program
Lead, Oregon De-
partment of Agricul-
ture
OSU Extension works with Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Central Oregon Irriga-
Ɵon District (COID) and provides onsite services to farmers as well as developing larger policy
and programmaƟc elements.
History: Oldest water rights in DC are from 1870/1880, first crop was largely potatoes.
Throughout Ɵme, crops grown have changed based on disease and popularity: chickpeas,
hemp, wheat, rye, hay grass, alfalfa, Marijuana, wineries etc.
Original water rights were Ɵed to the crop (i.e. potatoes, alfalfa) which make them difficult to
alter/change with new crops/new farming pracƟces.
DC has over 1,000 individual farms, compared to Crook County (680) and Jefferson County
(480). Majority are “small farms” and range from >0.5 acre to 10 acres.
Most efficient crops depend on the individual farm. Common pracƟce for marijuana produc-
Ɵon is to use drip irrigaƟon within greenhouses/indoor structures (100% efficient), dragline
pivot irrigaƟon (98% efficient), tradiƟonal center pivot (50-85% efficient). Even minor changes
to pivots could result in an 18% increase in efficiency.
Greatest opportunity for change within water use would be pasture areas. Many areas in DC
where owners are misinformed of irrigaƟon maintenance/operaƟons, some are sƟll watering
juniper and rock.
Alfalfa is the largest user of water, but in DC there’s a limited ability of large acreage parcels.
ODA is researching how to adjust prior appropriate process to today – ie allocate enough water
for farmers, fisheries, how to remap water to other irrigaƟon districts, etc. Ex: Colorado is able
to lease rural water to ciƟes during droughts.
COID would like to be able to move water from district to district. Example: North Unit irriga-
Ɵon district serves highly producƟve farms in Jefferson County but have junior water rights
compared to COI, so are the first to lose water in a shortage.
Changes to water law are needed but require acƟon at the state level.
More educaƟon/outreach regarding ag and water is needed, COID and OSU lack funding for
posiƟons currently. Each would prefer to have a staff person who could specialize in irrigaƟon
efficiency/outreach.
Harney County recently undertook an iniƟaƟve to switch all overhead pivots to Low Energy
Sprinkler ApplicaƟon (LESA) pivots in response to over-allocaƟon of water. Funding came from
Energy Trust of Oregon and Bureau of ReclamaƟon.
14
Additional Resources
MeeƟng Notes:
Panel Comments
ProjecƟons and
Planning
(December 13, 2018)
Bill Durden - Public
Works Director, City
of Redmond
Craig Horell - Man-
ager, Central Oregon
IrrigaƟon District
Adam Sussman -
Principal Water Re-
sources Con-
sultant
Mike Taylor – Board
President, CoaliƟon
for the Deschutes
CoaliƟon for the Deschutes established a new program recently called “A Shared Vision for the
Deschutes” to engage a variety of project partners toward a unifying vision.
Although many wells in Deschutes County are relaƟvely shallow, municipal wells in Redmond were
dug to be quite deep and draw downs are not currently of concern. For Redmond, parks and green
space are oŌen the largest water consumers, but consumpƟon is overall manageable.
The 47-member Upper Deschutes Basin Study work group has been highly effecƟve in collaboraƟng
on a “state of the basin” report. The study is now complete, but it is only a study. There are not any
acƟon items or next steps proposed at this Ɵme.
Assessing water efficiency and consumpƟon management is among the top priority of those man-
aging water. COID has a System Improvement Plan to idenƟfy areas where losses can be curbed.
Redmond has seen a decrease in water use due to low flow technology and metering.
Redmond’s WaterHawk program is in place to detect leaks and water losses in their uƟlity system,
as well as helping consumers understand their water consumpƟon in detail and offering rebates to
incenƟvize conservaƟon.
Redmond shared concerns regarding populaƟon growth and infrastructure—water pressure in
wells may be impacted during high use seasons.
ProliferaƟon of wells in Redmond may lead to a drawn down of the aquifer during high use season.
Greatest opportunity for change within water use would be pasture areas. Many areas in DC where
owners are misinformed of irrigaƟon maintenance/operaƟons, some are sƟll watering juniper and
rock.
Alfalfa is the largest user of water, but in DC there’s a limited ability of large acreage parcels.
ODA is researching how to adjust prior appropriate process to today – ie allocate enough water for
farmers, fisheries, how to remap water to other irrigaƟon districts, etc. Ex: Colorado is able to lease
rural water to ciƟes during droughts.
COID would like to be able to move water from district to district. Example: North Unit irrigaƟon
district serves highly producƟve farms in Jefferson County but have junior water rights compared to
COI, so are the first to lose water in a shortage.
Changes to water law are needed but require acƟon at the state level.
More educaƟon/outreach regarding ag and water is needed, COID and OSU lack funding for posi-
Ɵons currently. Each would prefer to have a staff person who could specialize in irrigaƟon efficien-
cy/outreach.
Harney County recently undertook an iniƟate to switch all overhead pivots to Low Energy Sprinkler
ApplicaƟon (LESA) pivots in response to over-allocaƟon of water. Funding came from Energy Trust
of Oregon and Bureau of ReclamaƟon.
2/2/22, 12:32 PM Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441 1/5
MENU
https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
Circular 1441
Water Availability and Use Science Program
By: Cheryl A. Dieter , Molly A. Maupin , Rodney R. Caldwell , Melissa A. Harris , Tamara I.
Ivahnenko , John K. Lovelace , Nancy L. Barber , and Kristin S. Linsey
Links
Document: Report (42 MB pdf)
Related Work: Fact Sheet 2018–3035 - Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in
2015
Data Release: USGS data release - Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for
2015
Superseded Publications:
Public supply and domestic water use in the United States, 2015(2017)
Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
Abstract
Water use in the United States in 2015 was estimated to be about 322 billion gallons per day
(Bgal/d), which was 9 percent less than in 2010. The 2015 estimates put total withdrawals at
the lowest level since before 1970, following the same overall trend of decreasing total
withdrawals observed from 2005 to 2010. Freshwater withdrawals were 281 Bgal/d, or 87
percent of total withdrawals, and saline-water withdrawals were 41.0 Bgal/d, or 13 percent
of total withdrawals. Fresh surface-water withdrawals (198 Bgal/d) were 14 percent less
than in 2010, and fresh groundwater withdrawals (82.3 Bgal/day) were about 8 percent
greater than in 2010. Saline surface-water withdrawals were 38.6 Bgal/d, or 14 percent less
than in 2010. Total saline groundwater withdrawals in 2015 were 2.34 Bgal/d, mostly for
mining use.
Tweet
An o icial website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
2/2/22, 12:32 PM Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441 2/5
Thermoelectric power and irrigation remained the two largest uses of water in 2015, and
total withdrawals decreased for thermoelectric power but increased for irrigation. With -
drawals in 2015 for thermoelectric power were 18 percent less and withdrawals for
irrigation were 2 percent greater than in 2010. Similarly, other uses showed reductions
compared to 2010, specifically public supply (–7 percent), self-supplied domestic (–8
percent), self-supplied industrial (–9 percent), and aquaculture (–16 percent). In addition to
irrigation (2 percent), mining (1 percent) reported larger withdrawals in 2015 than in 2010.
Livestock withdrawals remained essentially the same in 2015 compared to 2010 (0 percent
change). Thermoelectric power, irrigation, and public-supply withdrawals accounted for 90
percent of total withdrawals in 2015.
Withdrawals for thermoelectric power were 133 Bgal/d in 2015 and represented the lowest
levels since before 1970. Surface-water withdrawals accounted for more than 99 percent of
total thermoelectric-power withdrawals, and 72 percent of those surface-water
withdrawals were from freshwater sources. Saline surface-water withdrawals for
thermoelectric power accounted for 97 percent of total saline surface-water withdrawals
for all uses. Thermoelectric-power withdrawals accounted for 41 percent of total
withdrawals for all uses, and freshwater withdrawals for thermoelectric power accounted
for 34 percent of the total freshwater withdrawals for all uses. Total consumptive use for
thermoelectric power was 4.31 Bgal/d in 2015 or 3 percent of the total thermoelectric-
power withdrawals.
Irrigation withdrawals were 118 Bgal/d in 2015, an increase of 2 percent from 2010 (116
Bgal/d), but were approximately equal to withdrawals estimated in the 1960s. Irrigation
withdrawals, all freshwater, accounted for 42 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all
uses and 64 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all uses excluding thermoelectric
power. Surface-water withdrawals (60.9 Bgal/d) accounted for 52 percent of the total
irrigation withdrawals, or about 8 percent less than in 2010. Ground water withdrawals for
irrigation were 57.2 Bgal/d in 2015, about 16 percent more than in 2010. About 63,500
thousand acres (or 63.5 million acres) were irrigated in 2015, an increase from 2010 of
about 1,130 thousand acres (2 percent). The number of acres irrigated using sprinkler and
microirrigation systems accounted for 63 percent of the total irrigated lands in 2015. Total
consumptive use for irrigation was 73.2 Bgal/d in 2015 or 62 percent of the total use
(withdrawals and reclaimed wastewater).
Public-supply withdrawals in 2015 were 39.0 Bgal/d, or 7 percent less than in 2010,
continuing the declines observed from 2005 to 2010. Total population in the United States
increased from 312.6 million people in 2010 to 325.0 million people in 2015, an increase of
4 percent. Public-supply withdrawals accounted for 14 percent of the total freshwater
2/2/22, 12:32 PM Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441 3/5
withdrawals for all uses and 21 percent of freshwater with drawals for all uses, excluding
thermoelectric power. The number of people that received potable water from public-
supply facilities in 2015 was 283 million, or about 87 percent of the total United States
population. This percentage is 1 percent greater than in 2010. Self-supplied domestic
withdrawals were 3.26 Bgal/d, or 8 percent less than in 2010. More than 98 percent of the
self-supplied domestic withdrawals were from groundwater sources.
Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were 14.8 Bgal/d in 2015, a 9 percent decline from
2010, continuing the downward trend since the peak of 47 Bgal/d in 1970. Total self-
supplied industrial withdrawals were 5 percent of total withdrawals for all uses and 8
percent of total withdrawals for all uses, excluding thermoelectric power. Most of the total
self-supplied industrial withdrawals were from surface-water sources (82 percent), and
nearly all (94 percent) of those surface-water withdrawals were from freshwater sources.
Nearly all of the groundwater withdrawals for self-supplied industrial use (98 percent) were
from freshwater sources.
Total aquaculture withdrawals were 7.55 Bgal/d in 2015, or 16 percent less than in 2010,
and surface water was the primary source (79 percent). Most of the surface-water
withdrawals occurred at facilities that operated flow-through raceways, which returned the
water to the source directly a er use. Aquaculture withdrawals accounted for 2 percent of
the total withdrawals for all uses and 4 percent of the total withdrawals for all uses,
excluding thermoelectric.
Total mining withdrawals in 2015 were 4.00 Bgal/d, or about 1 percent of total withdrawals
from all uses and 2 percent of total withdrawals from all uses, excluding thermoelectric.
Mining withdrawals increased 1 percent from 2010 to 2015. Groundwater withdrawals
accounted for 72 percent of the total mining withdrawals, and most of the groundwater
was saline (65 percent). Most (77 percent) of the surface-water withdrawals for mining was
freshwater.
Livestock withdrawals in 2015 were 2.00 Bgal/d, the same as in 2010. All livestock
withdrawals were from freshwater sources, mostly from groundwater (62 percent).
Livestock withdrawals accounted for about 1 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all
uses, excluding thermoelectric power.
In 2015, more than 50 percent of the total withdrawals in the United States were accounted
for by 12 States (California, Texas, Idaho, Florida, Arkansas, New York, Illinois, Colorado,
North Carolina, Michigan, Montana, and Nebraska). California accounted for almost 9
percent of the total withdrawals and 9 percent of freshwater withdrawals in the United
States, predominantly for irrigation. Texas accounted for almost 7 percent of total
2/2/22, 12:32 PM Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441 4/5
withdrawals, predominantly for thermoelectric power, irrigation, and public supply. Florida
accounted for 23 percent of the total saline-water withdrawals in the United States, mostly
from surface-water sources for thermoelectric power. Texas and California accounted for 59
percent of the total saline groundwater withdrawals in the United States, mostly for mining.
Suggested Citation
Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and
Linsey, K.S., 2018, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1441, 65 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441. [Supersedes USGS Open-File Report 2017–1131.]
ISSN: 2330-5703 (online)
ISSN: 1067-084X (print)
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Total Water Use
Public Supply
Domestic
Irrigation
Livestock
Aquaculture
Industrial
Mining
Thermoelectric Power
Trends in Water Use, 1950–2015
References Cited
Glossary
Contributing Agencies and Organizations
Publication type Report
Publication Subtype USGS Numbered Series
Title Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
Additional publication details
2/2/22, 12:32 PM Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441 5/5
Series title Circular
Series number 1441
ISBN 978-1-4113-4233-0
DOI 10.3133/cir1441
Year Published 2018
Language English
Publisher U.S. Geological Survey
Publisher location Reston, VA
Contributing o ice(s)Maryland Water Science Center
Description v, 65 p.
Online Only (Y/N)N
Additional Online Files (Y/N)N
Google Analytic Metrics Metrics page
Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing
PDF documents, it is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them with
Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or print as intended. Download the
latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and printing report
files can be found here.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act |
FOIA
10 Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015
Table 2A. Total water withdrawals by water-use category, 2015, in million gallons per day.
[Values may not sum to totals because of independent rounding. Values for public supply and aquaculture include fresh and saline-water withdrawals]
State
Public
supply
Domes-
tic
Irriga-
tion
Live-
stock
Aqua-
culture Industrial Mining Thermoelectric
power Total
Total Fresh Fresh Fresh Total Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Total
Alabama ......................762 36.7 223 26.2 49.4 494 0 30.2 0 6,630 0 8,250 0 8,250
Alaska .........................99.2 11.4 1.52 0.13 410 8.35 1.83 36.4 131 66.7 0 633 132 766
Arizona ........................1,200 24.0 4,530 38.9 34.5 6.12 0 68.3 0 83.5 0 5,980 0 5,980
Arkansas ......................363 12.8 11,600 34.1 251 157 0 3.07 0 1,440 0 13,800 0 13,800
California ....................5,150 127 19,000 183 727 399 0 45.8 272 36.4 2,840 25,600 3,160 28,800
Colorado ......................844 35.4 9,000 33.3 260 84.1 0 7.70 24.2 37.2 0 10,300 24.2 10,300
Connecticut .................240 30.8 11.3 1.15 25.2 181 41.6 4.25 0 126 2,470 617 2,510 3,130
Delaware .....................86.4 14.5 113 1.34 1.98 302 0 0.65 0 14.4 256 534 256 790
District of Columbia ...0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.05
Florida .........................2,380 177 2,450 26.1 15.0 245 1.08 130 0 434 9,420 5,690 9,600 15,300
Georgia ........................1,070 104 738 44.9 85.1 475 0 19.8 0 741 102 3,280 102 3,380
Hawaii .........................267 8.10 385 1.61 18.6 0.24 0 0.92 0 1.48 377 683 377 1,060
Idaho ...........................276 70.2 15,300 50.8 1,960 57.6 0 23.1 0 1.79 0 17,700 0 17,700
Illinois .........................1,480 92.1 234 36.2 10.7 431 0 55.0 21.0 8,140 0 10,500 21.0 10,500
Indiana .........................628 127 133 39.2 14.5 2,290 0 126 0 3,820 0 7,180 0 7,180
Iowa .............................390 32.0 35.0 165 19.7 288 0 75.5 0 1,680 0 2,690 0 2,690
Kansas .........................351 17.7 2,680 104 6.39 38.1 0 5.99 0 817 0 4,010 6.18 4,020
Kentucky .....................553 22.1 39.6 40.8 48.4 225 0 40.6 0 1,860 0 2,830 0 2,830
Louisiana .....................709 39.3 1,050 6.35 493 2,140 0 6.24 0 4,040 261 8,480 261 8,750
Maine ..........................85.0 31.6 18.9 2.05 54.0 182 42.9 6.33 0 5.30 80.7 385 124 509
Maryland .....................750 114 64.1 8.00 7.98 49.4 1.37 16.8 0 220 5,300 1,230 5,300 6,530
Massachusetts .............648 35.1 139 1.03 9.93 27.9 0 9.60 0 50.1 487 920 488 1,410
Michigan .....................1,030 187 332 23.7 73.8 518 0 85.7 0.58 7,800 0 10,100 0.58 10,100
Minnesota ....................515 82.2 276 58.9 16.5 259 0 9.20 0 2,010 0 3,230 0 3,230
Mississippi ..................400 48.1 1,770 17.1 127 182 0 9.45 6.58 118 8.42 2,670 15.0 2,690
Missouri ......................797 57.5 1,370 63.7 164 85.2 0 29.6 0 5,860 0 8,430 0 8,430
Montana ......................153 23.7 9,450 42.2 17.1 9.67 0 21.6 16.3 75.7 0 9,800 16.3 9,810
Nebraska .....................275 19.0 6,090 110 26.5 44.3 0 9.60 6.41 2,920 0 9,490 6.41 9,500
Nevada ........................531 35.8 2,070 4.94 34.0 5.71 0 195 11.3 8.73 70.9 2,880 82.2 2,960
New Hampshire ..........95.5 29.7 5.20 0.84 17.2 12.6 0 6.13 0 74.8 693 242 693 935
New Jersey ..................1,180 90.7 93.9 0.88 9.78 94.1 0 58.3 0 361 3,430 1,880 3,430 5,310
New Mexico ................262 24.6 2,370 32.0 24.1 3.40 0 56.8 89.4 33.5 0 2,810 89.4 2,900
New York ....................2,420 187 53.5 25.7 60.4 312 8.43 40.2 0.95 2,210 5,470 5,310 5,480 10,800
North Carolina ............938 169 325 66.5 1,000 193 0 38.3 0 6,180 1,360 8,920 1,360 10,300
North Dakota ...............84.2 3.69 233 20.8 5.32 19.6 0 30.7 15.1 983 0 1,380 15.1 1,400
Ohio.............................1,310 139 55.0 24.6 39.3 348 0 129 0 4,480 0 6,520 0 6,520
Oklahoma ....................611 30.3 931 70.6 3.29 52.0 0 37.4 155 71.7 0 1,810 155 1,960
Oregon .........................567 73.9 5,160 16.3 634 105 0 11.3 0 11.4 0 6,580 0 6,580
Pennsylvania ...............1,390 208 34.3 39.5 96.0 645 0 38.1 5.60 3,580 0 6,030 5.60 6,040
Rhode Island ...............97.5 6.57 4.25 0.12 6.81 2.05 0.03 2.92 0 1.33 222 122 222 343
South Carolina ............633 118 126 9.87 6.69 286 0 10.1 0 4,980 0 6,170 0 6,170
South Dakota ...............72.0 5.56 211 47.9 28.5 24.4 0 8.65 0 2.39 0 400 0 400
Tennessee ....................850 42.8 63.8 23.4 56.9 734 0 31.4 0 4,620 0 6,420 0 6,420
Texas ...........................2,890 137 5,490 276 23.2 323 601 131 1,000 9,640 757 18,900 2,390 21,300
Utah .............................627 10.4 3,030 15.9 83.1 54.2 79.0 3.47 258 61.0 8.46 3,880 350 4,230
Vermont .......................42.7 11.0 3.11 5.87 12.0 11.0 0 4.56 0 0.80 0 90.9 0 90.9
Virginia........................697 125 51.7 27.0 113 370 5.15 24.9 0 2,910 2,400 4,310 2,420 6,730
Washington..................867 110 2,520 29.7 245 412 0 17.0 0 52.2 0 4,260 0 4,260
West Virginia ...............185 31.3 4.15 5.08 39.3 424 3.05 53.3 1.52 1,570 0 2,320 4.57 2,320
Wisconsin ....................479 76.4 460 74.5 48.2 382 0 29.3 0 4,210 0 5,760 0 5,760
Wyoming .....................101 8.93 7,790 16.2 28.8 8.04 0 44.5 96.8 51.8 0 8,050 96.8 8,140
Puerto Rico ..................576 0.52 75.7 5.83 0.63 3.67 0 2.02 0 4.65 1,700 669 1,700 2,370
U.S. Virgin Islands ......4.27 3.78 0 0.02 0 0.52 0 0 0.02 0.14 96.5 5.37 99.9 105
TOTAL 39,000 3,260 118,000 2,000 7,550 14,000 786 1,880 2,120 95,100 37,800 281,000 41,000 322,000
18 Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015
Public supply refers to water withdrawn by public and
private water suppliers that provide water to at least 25 people
or have a minimum of 15 connections. Public-supply water is
delivered to users for domestic, commercial, thermoelectric,
irrigation, and industrial purposes; it also is used for public
services and system losses.
Data on population, public supply and self-served
domestic populations, public-supply withdrawals with deliver-
ies to domestic users, and self-supplied domestic withdrawals
for 2015 were published by the USGS in Dieter and Maupin
(2017) and Dieter and others (2017). Data and interpretations
of the data presented in Dieter and Maupin (2017) and Dieter
and others (2017) are superseded by this report and the
concurrent data release (Dieter and others, 2018). Specifically,
some county-level data have been revised for public-supply
and self-supplied domestic populations (Florida and Georgia),
public-supply withdrawals (Georgia, Nevada, Tennessee, and
Utah), and self-supplied domestic withdrawals (Utah and
U.S. Virgin Islands). Changes to public-supply deliveries for
domestic uses also were made (Utah). Changes to public-
supply population served, withdrawals (public supply and
self-supplied domestic), and deliveries have caused changes
to calculated values of county
per capita rates (Florida, Utah,
U.S. Virgin Islands).
In some States, public-
supply water sources include
desalinated seawater or
brackish groundwater that has
been treated to reduce dis-
solved solids. A combined total of 7.21 Mgal/d saline surface-water withdrawals for public-
supply use were reported for
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas,
Florida, and Massachusetts. A
combined total of 263 Mgal/d
saline groundwater withdraw-
als for public-supply use
were identified for Florida,
California, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, and Utah. Saline withdrawals for public supply
were identified for only eight
States and represent less than
1 percent of total public-supply
withdrawals; therefore, they
are not listed separately in
table 5 but are included in
the estimated withdrawals.
Discussions of public supply withdrawals below include these
saline withdrawals.
A total of 39,000 Mgal/d (table 5), or 43,700 thousand
acre-ft/yr (table 2B), of water were withdrawn for public
supply in 2015. This amount is 7 percent less than the esti-
mated amount of water withdrawn for public supply in 2010,
continuing the decline in public-supply withdrawals observed
from 2005 to 2010 (Maupin and others, 2014). Total public-
supply withdrawals in 2015 were at the lowest levels since
1995 (approximately 40,200 Mgal/d) (Maupin and others,
2014). Public supply represents about 14 percent of total
freshwater withdrawals and 21 percent of all withdrawals,
excluding thermoelectric power.
An estimated 283 million people relied on public-supply
water for household use in 2015. This number represents
about 87 percent of the total United States population. About
33 percent of all public-supply withdrawals were made in the
four States with the largest populations: California, Texas,
New York, and Florida (fig. 4). Populations in the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico are supplied almost completely
by public-supply systems, whereas only one-half of the
populations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Maine are supplied
by public-supply systems.
Sixty-one percent of water
withdrawn for public supply in
2015 was from surface sources,
such as lakes and streams;
the other 39 percent was from
groundwater.
Some States in the Nation,
because of population, with-
draw more than 1,000 Mgal/d
of water for distribution
or rely primarily on either
surface water or groundwater
as a source for public-supply
potable water. Five States—
California, New York, Texas,
Pennsylvania, and Illinois—
each withdrew more than
1,000 Mgal/d of surface water
for public supply in 2015 and
together accounted for 36 per-
cent of the total surface-water
withdrawals for public supply.
In 36 States, including Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, surface-water sources
provided more than one-half of
39,000 million gallons per dayPublic Supply
12 percentPublic-supply water tower in Baltimore County, Maryland.
Public Supply 19
the total public-supply withdrawals. Three States—California,
Florida, and Texas—each withdrew more than 1,000 Mgal/d
of groundwater for public supply in 2015 and accounted
for 37 percent of total groundwater withdrawals for public
supply (table 5; fig. 4). States that relied on groundwater for
75 percent or more of their public-supply withdrawals were
Hawaii, Idaho, Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Most of the public-supply withdrawals are delivered to
customers for domestic, commercial, and industrial needs.
Part of the total is used for public services, such as public
pools, parks, firefighting, water and wastewater treatment, and
municipal buildings, and some is unaccounted for because
of leaks, flushing, tower maintenance, and other system
losses. Public-supply deliveries to commercial, industrial,
and thermoelectric-power users have not been reported by
the USGS NWUSP since 1995. However, public-supply
deliveries to domestic users are included in these data, which
when combined with the self-supplied domestic withdrawals,
completes the amount of water withdrawn directly for human
consumption. Domestic deliveries represent the largest
single component of public-supply withdrawals, averaging
60 percent of the total nationally. Estimates of public-supply
deliveries for domestic use, by State, representing indoor and
outdoor water uses at occupied residences, are identified in
table 5. Estimates for commercial and industrial deliveries,
public use, and system losses were not available for all States
and, therefore, are included in table 5 as an aggregate number
(“All other uses and system losses”). Some States reported
public-supply deliveries to thermoelectric powerplants for
2015, and these data are presented in the “Thermoelectric
Power” section of this report and are included in table 5.
Methods for estimating public-supply withdrawals,
source of water, population served, and domestic deliveries
varied by State. Common sources of information about
withdrawals by source included data collected from water
suppliers by State water regulatory agencies or through
surveys. Estimates of the population served by public supply
were derived using various sources, including reports from
State agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
database, U.S. Census data, and information on service
connections from public suppliers. Methods for estimating
domestic deliveries included surveys of public-supply sales
information, calculations using coefficients for per capita
use, and development of average percentages of deliveries to
various customer categories (Bradley, 2017).
Water treatment plant, Baltimore, Maryland. Photograph by Cheryl A. Dieter, USGS.
Irrigation and Water Management
ACH17-12/November 2019
Results from the 2018 Irrigation and Water Management SurveyHighlights
United States Department of Agriculture
National Agricultural Statistics Service www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus
Number and Location
In 2018, there were 231,474 farms in
the United States that irrigated at some
point during the year, an increase of
2,237 farms since 2013. They irrigated
55.9 million acres (about one-fourth of
their farmland), applying 83.4 million
acre-feet of water, a decrease of 5.8
percent from 2013. The average amount
of water applied per acre was 1.5 acre-
feet, down from 1.6 in 2013.
Five states – California, Nebraska,
Arkansas, Texas, and Idaho – together
accounted for 50 percent of U.S.
irrigated acres in 2018 and 56 percent of
total irrigation water applied.
Irrigation provides water to fields in the
open and to commodities grown under
protection. Acres in the open accounted
for nearly all irrigated acres.
The 2018 Irrigation and Water
Management Survey collected detailed
data on irrigation methods and
water use on U.S. farms, ranches, and
horticultural operations.
In 2018, U.S. farms irrigated 55.9 million acres with 83.4 million acre-feet
of water. The number of farms irrigating and the amount of land irrigated
increased slightly between 2013 and 2018, while the total amount of water
used for irrigation declined. Irrigation needs vary depending on weather and
the commodities grown. Five states accounted for about half of the irrigated
acres and water applied. Wells provided half of the water used for irrigation,
and sprinkler systems were the most widely used distribution method.
231,474
irrigating farms
55.9 million
irrigated acres
83.4 million
acre-feet of water
Top States
Irrigated Acreage and Water Use, 2018
Irrigated Acres Water Applied (acre-feet)
million million avg per acre
California 8.4 California 24.5 2.9
Nebraska 7.7 Idaho 6.6 1.9
Arkansas 4.2 Texas 5.3 1.3
Texas 4.1 Arkansas 5.1 1.2
Idaho 3.4 Nebraska 4.9 0.6
Colorado 2.5 Arizona 4.4 4.7
Kansas 2.4 Washington 4.1 2.2
Montana 2.1 Colorado 3.8 1.6
Washington 1.9 Oregon 2.7 1.7
Mississippi 1.7 Montana 2.5 1.2
U.S. Total 55.9 U.S. Total 83.4 1.5
California applied
the largest total
amount of
irrigation water,
24.5 million acre-
feet.
Arizona applied
the most water per
acre, an average of
4.7 acre-feet.
The total amount of water
applied declined 5.8 percent
between 2013 and 2018.
U.S. Farms that Irrigated, 2013 and 2018
2013 2018 % change
Number of farms 229,237 231,474 1.0
Land in farms (acres)214.0 mil 222.0 mil 3.8
Irrigated acres 55.3 mil 55.9 mil 1.1
Acre-feet applied
U.S. total 88.5 mil 83.4 mil -5.8
Average per acre 1.6 1.5
Acre-foot
The amount of water required to cover one acre to a depth of one foot.
This is equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons.
Water Sources, 2018
Irrigated Acres Acre-feet Applied
million million % of total
Ground water from wells 36.2 41.5 50
On-farm surface water 6.3 8.3 10
Off-farm water 15.9 33.6 40
Total 55.9a 83.4 100
a Total is less than the sum of individual sources because some irrigated
acres have more than one water source.
Source: USDA NASS 2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey (2017 Census of Agriculture).
Water Sources and Distribution Systems
Producers relied on three sources of water for irrigation: ground water from on-farm wells,
surface water on the farm, and off-farm water from a variety of sources and suppliers. They
relied on sprinkler systems, gravity systems, and a variety of drip, trickle, or other low-flow
micro systems to distribute the water.
Irrigation Expenses
Energy costs for pumping well and surface
water amounted to $2.4 billion; the average
cost per farm was $15,289.
Infrastructure costs for equipment,
facilities, land improvement, and computer
technology were $2.0 billion. Water
purchased from off-farm sources and labor
costs each amounted to $1.1 billion.
Horticulture Operations
Horticulture operations irrigate both fields in the open and areas under protection. In 2018,
these operations irrigated 581,936 acres in the open, a 57,709-acre increase from 2013. They
also irrigated 1.5 billion square feet under protection, an increase of 120 million from 2013.
Some types of horticulture crops, such as sod, are grown almost exclusively in the open.
Top Crops Irrigated by Horticulture Operations, 2018
In the Open (acres)Under Protection (mil sq feet)
Sod 260,974 Floriculture and bedding 737.4
Nursery crops 198,995 Nursery crops 503.2
Propagative materials 78,401 Food under protection 158.2
Floriculture and bedding 30,448 Propagative materials 121.1
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Ground water
from on-farm
wells accounted
for 50 percent of
irrigation water
applied.
Distribution Systems, Acres in the Open, 2018
Farms Irrigated Acres
number million
Sprinkler 109,184 31.7
Gravity 85,888 20.2
Drip, trickle, and low-flow micro 62,158 5.9
Total 220,566a 55.9a
a Total is less than the sum because some farms and acres have more than one
distribution system applied.
Sprinklers were
the most widely
used distribution
system, covering
31.7 million
irrigated acres in
the open.
Irrigation Expenses, U.S. Total and Average per Farm, 2018
U.S. Total ($ billion)
avg per farm w/
the expense ($)
Energy for pumping 15,2892.4
Infrastructure 25,0752.0
Water purchased 14,9061.1
Labor (hired and contract)27,0301.1
About the Survey
The 2018 Irrigation and Water
Management Survey (IWMS) was
conducted with producers who
indicated in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture that they had irrigated
sometime during the past five years. It
is the successor to the Farm and Ranch
Irrigation Survey,
For more information on the IWMS and
the Census of Agriculture, go to:
www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus
462,788 Wells
119,235 U.S. farms used 462,788 wells in
2018 for irrigation. The wells provided
50 percent of all water for open fields
and 63 percent of water for protected
areas. Farms utilizing ground water on
average had 3.9 wells.
Of the wells:
• 36 percent had flow meters to
measure the amount of water
supplied• 74 percent had backflow
prevention devices to prevent cross
contamination
Most wells required dedicated pumps to
move ground water to the surface, but
2,844 free-flowing wells on 1,520 farms
did not require a pump.
235 feet
The average well depth in 2018.
The average depth to water
at the beginning of irrigation
season was 94 feet.