IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ualbpr/24047.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conserving Water in Irrigated Agriculture: The Economics and Valuation of Water Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Veeman, Terrence S.
  • Veeman, Michele M.
  • Adamowicz, Wiktor L.
  • Royer, S.
  • Viney, Bruce
  • Freeman, Ruth
  • Baggs, J.

Abstract

The effective management of water resources in Alberta is crucial to sustainable agriculture, industrial development, and environmental management. The historical water allocation mechanism, administrative apportionment, has been viewed in recent years as ineffective and cumbersome. Accordingly, the revision of the Water Act in 1996, included an attempt to improve the efficiency of water allocation. By making the transfer of water rights possible, the revised Act provides many new options for water use and flexibility. The implications of transferable water rights in Alberta water policy must be carefully considered in order to determine the viability and suitability of such a system in the provincial context. This project examines some of the economic aspects of transferable water rights and the potential for effective water allocation by way of transfers in an Alberta setting. As a major part of this project, a hedonic price model, focusing on land values in southern Alberta, was constructed based on similar models, which have been used elsewhere to value water rights or agricultural products. The hedonic approach to market analysis uses the relationship between the price of land and the attributes of the land, such as water availability, soil quality and location, to explain differences in land prices. In this process, the hedonic model is used to estimate the implicit marginal price or value of each land attribute -- in our case, the marginal value of irrigation water. This value will provide us with an indirect estimate of the value of water rights in the region studied. An advantage of the technique is that it estimates the value that farmers express for irrigation water in the market place for land. Such values, then, give us an indication of the anticipated prices, which might prevail for water rights in southern Alberta. The focus of the study was an area of southern Alberta encompassing the counties of Wheatland, Newell, Cypress, Forty Mile, Taber, Warner, Lethbridge and Vulcan and the irrigation districts of Western, Eastern, St.Mary's, Taber, Lethbridge Northern, and portions of Raymond. Information was collected on the physical and economic characteristics of 230 land parcels, which were sold in this region in 1993 and early 1994. A crude comparison of the value of irrigated agricultural land and non-irrigated agricultural land in the sample reveals that irrigated land was worth, on average, $325 more per acre than non-irrigated land. In the ensuing analysis, it was estimated that the value of a parcel of land was determined largely by the buildings on it, the number of acres in the parcel, the proximity of the parcel to a major city (in this case Calgary or Lethbridge), and by the availability of irrigation water. In the hedonic model, the coefficient values of the variables included represent the marginal impact of each of these characteristics on land prices holding all other things constant. For example, the value of water rights represents the average difference between land values of farms that have access to irrigation and farms that do not. This study estimated that every dollar of improvements to farm buildings translates to a one cent increase in the per acre price of the land parcel, where the addition of one extra acre of land to a land parcel lowers the price per acre by $5.17 per acre. Land prices were seen to increase with the proximity of the parcel to large cities. Similarly, the results of the preferred model indicate that the implicit value of having access to irrigation water in southern Alberta is approximately $190 per acre, or, using the conventional estimate that irrigating one acre of land requires 1.5 acre feet of water, this translates to $126 per acre foot of irrigation water. Accordingly, it is revealed that the existence of water rights adds approximately 35% to the value of non-irrigated land. Since this value represents the implicit amount farmers are willing to pay for access to water, it could also be construed as an indirect measure of the value of water rights. From these results, it is reasonable to conclude that water rights do have a measurable impact on land values. Accordingly, proper incentives may be needed to ensure that water is used efficiently and not incorrectly treated as a relatively free or cheap good. One possible method of policy reform to achieve such a system would be the institution of a system of transferable water rights, permitting water to be traded, or effectively sold, at its market price or scarcity value. Further work was done to determine the potential effects of transferable water rights on the Eastern Irrigation District in southern Alberta. Farm budget information was used to gather information and create twelve representative farm types whose financial performance was analysed using linear programming with increasing water quantity constraints. The resulting productive water values were then used to imply potential reallocations of water among farm types and cropping systems. Analysis of the data gathered revealed that all representative farms faced downward sloping demand functions for water. The overall value of water for a 1% reduction ranged from $8 to $250 per acre foot, with the lowest value belonging to largely pasture operations and the highest value attributed to specialty crop producers. This large range in water values for the region indicates that there is sufficient heterogeneity within the EID to accommodate a transferable rights system. Further analysis of the data reveals that the implementation of a transfer system would result in water being transferred to specialty crop producers and the acreage devoted to specialty crops would increase. Small irrigated pasture operations and cereal crop producers would be the first to give up their water allocations under a transfer system. The analysis indicates that there is considerable potential for economic gains from water trade within this district, the main constraint being the market limitations to expanded specialty crop production. Using these two major studies and other sources, this report concludes with a brief evaluation of the economic advantages, disadvantages and other issues involved in instituting a system of transferable water rights in Alberta. Experience elsewhere, primarily in Australia and the western United States, strongly suggests that transferable water rights, despite some drawbacks and problems of implementation, can be a very worthwhile water policy tool. Now that such tradable water rights are permissible under the revised Water Resources Act of 1996, it is recommended that a pilot project involving transferable water rights be instituted in a water short basin or sub-basin in southern Alberta once a water management plan for that basin is completed.

Suggested Citation

  • Veeman, Terrence S. & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Royer, S. & Viney, Bruce & Freeman, Ruth & Baggs, J., 1997. "Conserving Water in Irrigated Agriculture: The Economics and Valuation of Water Rights," Project Report Series 24047, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24047
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24047/files/pr970001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ervin, David E. & Mill, John W., 1985. "Agricultural Land Markets and Soil Erosion: Policy Relevance and Conceptual Issues," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278510, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1956. "Concepts Used as Economic Criteria for a System of Water Rights," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(4), pages 295-312.
    3. David A. King & J. A. Sinden, 1988. "Influence of Soil Conservation on Farm Land Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 242-255.
    4. Tim J. Coelli & J. Lloyd‐Smith & D. Morrison & J. Thomas, 1991. "Hedonic Pricing For A Cost Benefit Analysis Of A Public Water Supply Scheme," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(1), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Jan P. Crouter, 1987. "Hedonic Estimation Applied to a Water Rights Market," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(3), pages 259-271.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Storm, Hugo & Heckelei, Thomas & Heidecke, Claudia, 2010. "Demand Estimation for Irrigation Water in the Moroccan Drâa Valley using Contingent Valuation," Discussion Papers 162895, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Tyler Tarnoczi, 2011. "Transformative learning and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Prairie agro-ecosystem," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 387-406, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walpole, Sandra C. & Lockwood, Michael, 1999. "Influence of remnant native vegetation on rural land values: a hedonic pricing application," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 125032, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Young, Ralph, 1991. "The Economic Significance of Environmental Resources: A Review of the Evidence," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(03), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    4. Calatrava-Leyva, Javier & Franco, Juan Agustin & Gonzalez-Roa, Maria del Carmen, 2005. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Olive Groves: The Case of Spanish Mountainous Areas," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24661, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Telles, Tiago Santos & Reydon, Bastiaan Philip & Maia, Alexandre Gori, 2018. "Effects of no-tillage on agricultural land values in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 124-129.
    6. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    7. Coelli, Tim J. & Lloyd-Smith, J. & Morrison, D. & Thomas, J., 1991. "Hedonic Pricing For A Cost Benefit Analysis Of A Public Water Supply Scheme," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(1), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Swanepoel, G.D. & Hadrich, Joleen & Goemans, Christopher, 2015. "Estimating the Contribution of Groundwater Irrigation to Farmland Values in Phillips County, Colorado," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2015, pages 1-14.
    9. Vuuren, W. van & Ketchabaw, E. H., 1994. "A Hedonic Study of Agricultural Land Rent in Southwestern Ontario," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258777, University of Guelph.
    10. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    11. T.S. Veeman & J. Politylo, 2003. "The Role of Institutions and Policy in Enhancing Sustainable Development and Conserving Natural Capital," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 317-332, September.
    12. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    13. Anne-Kathrin LAST, 2008. "The Monetary Value of Cultural Goods: A Contingent Valuation Study of the Municipal Supply of Cultural Goods in Lueneburg, Germany," EcoMod2008 23800074, EcoMod.
    14. Mullen, John D. & Helyar, K.R. & Pagan, Phil, 2000. "Economic and Biological Perspectives on Off-site Effects Associated with Soil Acidification," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123709, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Hadjigeorgalis, Ereney, 2002. "Water Rights Heterogeneity And Price Determination: How Market And Product Attributes Affect Agricultural Water Market Prices," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19790, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Edward Oczkowski, 1994. "A Hedonic Price Function For Australian Premium Table Wine," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 93-110, April.
    17. Oltmer, Katrin & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2001. "Impacts Of Agricultural Policy Reform On Land Prices: A Quantitative Analysis Of The Literature," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20507, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. David Maddison, 2009. "A Spatio‐temporal Model of Farmland Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 171-189, February.
    19. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    20. Harry R. Clarke, 1992. "The Supply Of Non‐Degraded Agricultural Land," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 31-56, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/drualca.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/drualca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.