OCR Text |
Show Table 4. Estimated revenue from user fees on public supply and irrigation uses in 10 selected states. State Type of Use Annual Use ( mgd) ( 1000 ac- ft) UseD Fee ($/ 1000 gal.) ($/ acre- ft) Annual Revenue ( SlOOO's) Ariz. Public Supply Irrigation 470 7,000 0.40 2.50 34,310 8,750 Calif. Public Supply Irrigation 3,400 37,000 0.40 2.50 248,200 46,250 Fla. Public Supply Irrigation 880 2,500 0.40 2.50 64,240 3,125 La. Public Supply Irrigation 380 1,700 0.40 2.50 27,740 2,125 Mass. Public Supply Irrigation 750 65 0.40 2.50 54,750 81 Minn. Public Supply Irrigation 340 23 0.40 2.50 24,820 29 New York Public Supply Irrigation 2,600 31 0.40 2.50 189,800 39 Okla. Public Supply Irrigation 260 920 0.40 2.50 18,980 1,150 Utah Public Supply Irrigation 280 4,100 0.40 2.50 20,440 5,125 Wash. Public Supply Irrigation 910 6,300 0.40 2.50 66,430 7,875 Total for all states Public Supply Irrigation 27,000 140,000 0.40 2.50 1,971,000 175,000 aSource: U. S. Geological Survey, 1972 ( public supply figures do not include supplies for rural use). bFees are illustrative only, computed on the basis of assumed prices for public supply and irrigation of $. 30/ 1000 gal. and $ 5.00/ ac- ft respectively. See Appendix C. cRevenue is calculated with Equation 3 assuming the elasticity for public supply and irrigation uses to be 0.75 and 2 respectively. ESTIMATES FOR UTAH Narrowing the focus to Utah, it is possible to get a clearer picture of the generating potential of water use fees. Estimates are made below for water used in agriculture, industry, homes and businesses, and in recreation. Irrigation User Fees Much of the water allocated to agriculture in Utah is distributed by mutual irrigation companies. It would be administratively easier from a state perspective to levy a fee against a mutual company than an individual. Under such an arrangement the company would distribute the fee to its stockholders. Companies from two counties, Weber and Utah, were selected to estimate revenue generation if the state were to levy a fee to extract the maximum revenue from each company given present rate structures. To do this, it was necessary to determine the elasticity of demand for irrigation water. Estimated elasticities for various regions of Utah are shown in Table 5. Taking the total amount of water used for irrigation in Utah and the average price and elasticity, it was found that the fee which would generate the most revenue would be $ 2.50 per acre/ ft and it would bring in approximately 5 million dollars annually. Revenue, average fee, and average burden/ stockholder, for Weber and Utah counties are shown in Tables 6 and 7. Some problems would be encountered in establishing and administering a comprehensive system of user charges on irrigation water in Utah. Mutual companies hold water rights and distribute water to users according to the number of shares in the company each user holds. Although records of each company's dealings with the state with respect to water rights are available in the Utah Water Rights Division, the water rights picture is complex and in a state of flux with companies continually making new applications for appropriation and changes in point of diversion. A perspective on this situation may be gained by examining the history of one of the companies, the Alpine Irrigation Company, in Appendix D. |