'Use it or lose it' impact on irrigation practices

Many of the people involved in water use and management in the western United States are no strangers to the phrase “use it or lose it.” Use it or lose it is a key principle of the prior appropriation doctrine, which forms the foundation of legal water use in most of the western U.S. The principle was created to ensure that water is used beneficially and not left idle for extended periods; otherwise, the associated water right is at risk of being lost.

While originally intended to ensure that water resources are actively used, this legal rule has, in more recent years, led to unintended consequences for agricultural water-use practices.

Essentially, the use-it-or-lose-it principle encourages farmers to use their full water allocation, even when it may not be necessary. In regions prone to aridity, more droughts and variable precipitation, adopting more efficient irrigation technologies and practices could help sustain water resources. However, under the enforced use-it-or-lose-it principle, doing so can paradoxically jeopardize a farmer’s legal claim to water. Reduced water use may lower the historical average tied to a water right, potentially resulting in a downward adjustment of that right. This, in turn, can limit future water availability for that water-right holder and significantly increase agricultural production risk. As a result, some farmers may over-irrigate crops or avoid adopting conservation measures to ensure their water rights remain fully intact.

In recent years, policymakers in several regions have begun to recognize this issue and explore ways to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule. The rule has been legally amended in several states to encourage conservation and help prevent the depletion of water resources (e.g., in Kansas and Utah). In addition to directly addressing the use-it-or-lose-it principle, incentive-based water-management policy tools such as water banking and temporary water transfers have been gaining more attention. These approaches aim to add the necessary flexibility to reduce risk in irrigated agricultural production by encouraging efficiency and not penalizing conservation. For example, farmers may temporarily transfer unused water to other users, including for environmental purposes, or store it for future use, creating flexibility within the system.

Legal frameworks governing water rights are often highly complex and inflexible, making meaningful adjustments difficult to implement.

Despite these efforts, challenges remain. Legal frameworks governing water rights are often highly complex and inflexible, making meaningful adjustments difficult to implement. Also, even in regions where amendments have been introduced to protect conserved water from affecting historical use calculations, many irrigating farmers remain skeptical. This skepticism often stems from uncertainty about how long such policy changes will remain in place and whether they will be consistently upheld over time. As a result, a lack of trust can persist, discouraging behavioral change. Building the confidence needed to adjust irrigation practices requires sustained outreach, transparent policy implementation and long-term institutional commitment.

Although the use-it-or-lose-it rule was designed to promote active and fair use of water resources, it has unintentionally encouraged inefficient irrigation practices and hindered conservation efforts. Addressing these challenges requires thoughtful policy changes that are adaptable to changing local conditions and that reward sustainability while protecting the rights and livelihoods of farmers.

As water scarcity becomes an increasingly pressing global issue, rethinking legal water doctrines will be essential to ensuring responsible and resilient water management.

Renata Rimšaitė, PhD, is a senior program manager for the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska. Views or opinions expressed in this column do not represent her employer.