Water Users Survey

Accordion Container

Overview

The objective of the landowner survey component of the WW2100 project was to evaluate Willamette Valley landowner attitudes toward and perceptions of water availability, water scarcity, present and future water management policy, and present and future land use and management goals. Additional survey questions focused on perceptions of risks to quality of life in the Willamette Valley, environmental values and value orientations, sources of information used to learn about water, desirable community characteristics, household activities, participation in organizations related to natural resources, and socioeconomics. A summary of general results for the most salient items is presented here. In survey responses, most landowners believe that the Willamette Valley has enough water currently. Of 1,402 respondents, approximately 54% strongly agreed that the Willamette Valley currently has enough water to meet the needs of people, plants, and animals, however respondents indicated greater uncertainty as time increased into the future. When asked about activities perceived to be high or moderate risk to water availability in the Willamette Valley, at least 70% of respondents indicated agriculture, drought conditions, and population growth.

Methods

Survey Methods in Brief

We used property tax records to create a sample of landowners for the survey. We used a geographic information system to stratify the sample in three ways:

Location in the Willamette Valley,
Residential versus agricultural property, and
Inside versus outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs).

In winter and spring 2013, we sent questionnaires to 1,600 landowners in each of Lane, Marion, and Washington-Yamhill Counties. From this effort, 1,402 surveys were completed and returned. There were 430 surveys returned as undeliverable and 56 refusals. Therefore, the overall response rate was approximately 32%.

Table 1. Survey respondents by stratum (n=1,402).

	Lane	Marion	Washington-Yamhill	Total
By property type and county Residential Agricultural	239 198	131 360	149 325	519 883
By location relative to Urban Growth Boundary and county Inside UGB Outside UGB	183 254	200 291	149 325	532 870
Total by county	437	491	474	1402

A follow-up questionnaire was sent to all landowners from the sample who did not answer the original survey. Approximately 400 questionnaires were completed. The most commonly reported reasons for not completing the survey were lack of interest in completing surveys, perceived lack of knowledge about water management, the survey was too long or complicated, and personal reasons.

Results

Select Findings from Water Users Survey

This summary is divided into the basic sections of the survey. All results are considered preliminary until peer-review of data is completed. Because of the sampling strategy used, results are not generalizable to the entire Willamette Valley.

Sample demographics

Survey respondents averaged 64 years of age.
More than half (60%) of survey respondents were male.
Nearly all (99%) of survey respondents own their home.
Average length of residence at the current address was 23 years.

Perceptions of Water Availability

Most respondents reported that they think about the role of water in their life in terms of their lifetime (25%) or for future generations (57%). When asked the degree to which they believe that the Willamette Valley has enough water to meet the needs of people, plants, and animals in several time periods, respondents indicated greater uncertainty as time increased into the future (Fig. 1). No statistical difference existed between residential versus agricultural landowners.

The degree to which respondents believe that the Willamette Valley has enough water to meet the needs of people, plants, and animals for different future time periods.

Figure 1. The degree to which respondents believe that the Willamette Valley has enough water to meet the needs of people, plants, and animals for different future time periods.

Risk to Water Availability

When asked about their perceived risk of activities to availability of water in the Willamette Valley, more than 40% of respondents indicated:

Drought conditions and population growth to be high risk.
Agriculture, forest management, and industry to be moderate risk.
Water storage (e.g., hydro-electric dams), private wells, and historical appropriation (e.g., water rights) to be low risk.

Activities perceived to be high or moderate risk to availability of water in the Willamette Valley by at least 70% of respondents include: agriculture (74%), drought conditions (73%), and population growth (85%).

Marion County respondents were less likely to perceive high or moderate risk of agriculture and drought conditions than the other two locations.
Residential landowners were less likely to perceive high or moderate risk of agriculture than agricultural landowners.

Definition of Water Scarcity

A group of WW2100 stakeholders developed a definition of water scarcity:

“Water scarcity occurs when there is not an affordable, attainable, and reliable source of clean water when and where it is wanted or needed by humans and animals and plants currently and into the future.”

Landowners were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived each underlined term to be associated with their own perception of water scarcity.

The greatest number of respondents indicated their perceptions to be strongly associated with “clean” and “humans.”
“Affordable” and “currently” were terms identified as weakly associated by the greatest number of landowners.
Two terms varied statistically for residential versus agricultural landowners. More residential (37%) than agricultural (26%) landowners indicated “affordable” (37% versus 26%) and “clean” (67% versus 57%) as strongly associated with their perception of scarcity.
Perceived association of several terms varied by location (county): attainable, reliable, clean, needed, humans, and animals and plants. Exploration of patterns in these differences is ongoing.

Landowners were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived each underlined phrase in the water scarcity definition to be associated with their own perceptions of water scarcity.

Figure 2. Landowners were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived each underlined phrase in the water scarcity definition to be associated with their own perceptions of water scarcity. This chart shows responses by phrase.

Water Regulation

Water law in Oregon currently is a “first in line, first in right” (i.e., those with the most recently acquired water rights lose them first). Most landowners (79%) believe that at least some regulation should exist related to water use and management, regardless of whether residential (81%) or agricultural (77%). Agreement with this statement was greatest in Washington-Yamhill Counties (83%), followed by Lane (80%) and Marion (74%) Counties.

Landowners were asked to indicate, in their opinion, the acceptability of different ways of distributing water among competing uses at times of limited water availability (Fig. 3). These included:

Current Oregon water law (see above)
The method that makes the most economic sense, regardless of priority
Users must share any excess water beyond what they need
Users can sell any excess water beyond what they need
All potential users have equal access to water that is available
Those who use more water pay more for its use
Users farther from the water source pay more for its use
Store enough water in reservoirs to account for all potential users
Give water not used by agriculture to municipal use
Give water not used by agriculture to biological use (e.g., more water in streams to maintain appropriate water temperature for fish)
Give water not used by agriculture to recreational use
Build more facilities for water storage and replenishment
Allow the state to decide allocation methods for water

Among the most acceptable distribution methods were those where excess is shared among users, those who use more water pay for its use, and water storage. Exploration of differences between residential and agricultural landowners and among counties are ongoing.

Responses from agricultural landowners about why they currently participate (or not) in selected land conservation practices.

Figure 3. Landowners were asked to indicate, in their opinion, the acceptability of different ways of distributing water among competing uses at times of limited water availability. This chart shows responses for the the options provided in the survey. Note: options are shown in the graph in the same order as the list provided above.

Future Use of Agricultural Land (Agricultural Landowners Only)

Agricultural landowners were asked several additional questions about water management on their land, and current and future use of their land. Eighty-seven percent (87%) reported that they currently live on their property. A majority of those who do not live on their property do live in Oregon. Ninety-three percent (93%) reported that they or an immediate member of their household manages decisions about water use on their property. Landowners were asked why they currently participate (or not) in selected land conservation practices (Fig. 4) and their interest in future participation in selected land conservation practices (Fig. 5).

Landowners were asked to indicate, in their opinion, the acceptability of different ways of distributing water among competing uses at times of limited water availability.

Figure 4. Responses from agricultural landowners about why they currently participate (or not) in selected land conservation practices.

Responses from agricultural landowners about their interest in participating in land conservation practices in the future.

Figure 5. Responses from agricultural landowners about their interest in participating in land conservation practices in the future.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of respondents indicated that they now have a formal, defined plan for future ownership of their land. There was no statistical difference between counties or location relative to UGB. Of those with a plan:

Forty-eight percent (48%) reported that the land will remain in its current use.
Twenty-five percent (25%) reported that a beneficiary will make any land use decisions.
Two percent (2%) reported either land will be divided into residential parcels or be part of a conservation easement.
Twenty-three percent (23%) reported “other.” Further evaluation of specific items provided by respondents is ongoing.

Landowners were asked to indicate which of the following will most likely to influence their decision in developing a plan for future ownership of their land, or potentially change an existing plan. Although there was no difference among counties, variation existed based on location relative to the UGB (Fig. 6).

Influences on future ownership plans reported by agricultural landowners, grouped by property location relative to the Urban Growth Boundary.

Figure 6. Influences on future ownership plans reported by agricultural landowners, grouped by property location relative to the Urban Growth Boundary.

Landowners were also asked to report on factors that influence their decisions about changing the land use on their property (Fig. 7). Preliminary results suggest that differences among counties exist for demand for particular products and possession of a current water right for the property, and differences in relation to UGB exist for regulations on land management practices, and regulations on water use.

The extent to which selected factors are likley to influence agricultural landowners decisions about future land use.

Figure 7. The extent to which selected factors are likley to influence agricultural landowners decisions about future land use.

More Information

Contributors to WW2100 Water Users Survey

Anita Morzillo, OSU Forest Ecosystems & Society, now at Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut
Meagan Atkinson, MS Student, OSU Environmental Science (Graduated: 2014)
Stephanie Graham, MS Student, Professional Science Masters (Graduated: 2012)

Web page author: A. Morzillo
Last updated: October 2015

Printer-friendly version

About Willamette Envision

Willamette Envision is a whole watershed model, i.e. it attempts to represent all the significant processes related to the supply and fate of water in the entire basin. These processes are both natural (e.g. precip, snow dynamics, infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration) and human (e.g. reservoir operations, irrigation, municipal water use, crop choice). The model takes exogenous projections of climate, population, and income as its drivers. It operates by simulating the processes across the entire basin for one time step, recording the effects on the landscape, and then advancing to the next timestep. Some processes are modeled at a daily timestep, for example streamflow and evapotranspiration, while others are modeled at an annual timestep, such as population growth and urban expansion. For more information about Willamette Envision, refer to the model introduction page.

Water cycle diagram. Image modified from NASA, https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle.

About WW2100 Modeling Scenarios

The Willamette Water 2100 project modeled 22 scenarios, a reference or base case, and a suite of alternative scenarios. The Reference Case scenario represents future conditions in the Willamette River Basin, under expected trends in population and income growth, existing policies and institutions, and a mid-range climate change projection. A suite of 18 alternative scenarios explore the influence of a single model driver or policy setting at a time. They each vary a single element or assumption from the Reference Case. Three alternative scenarios vary multiple scenario elements from the Reference Case and represent plausible thematic narratives such as “Extreme” or “Worst Case.” Refer to the scenarios page for a detailed description of the WW2100 modeling scenarios, their purpose, and their assumptions.

Willamette Water 2100

You are here