My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AgWaterConservationPaper
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
AgWaterConservationPaper
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:47:08 AM
Creation date
2/17/2008 2:14:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2008
Title
Meeting Colorado's Future Water Supply Needs: Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Potential Agricultural Water Conservation Measures - Draft Report
Author
Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance
Description
Meeting Colorado's Future Water Supply Needs: Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Potential Agricultural Water Conservation Measures - Draft Report
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Section 4 <br />Agricultural Conservation Measures <br />Efficient application that mininuzes runoff, deep percolation, and evaporation <br />losses <br />^ Inclusion of forage crops u1 rotation <br />^ Skip row, lower plant population, reduced crop canopy coverage <br />Optimum Irrigation Scheduling <br />Irrigation scheduling has long been advocated as a way to obtaul greater water use <br />efficiency by applyi~lg the right amount of water at the right tinle to optinlize net <br />returns. This management practice nlay or nlay not result in reduced consumptive use <br />but implies that: <br />^ The objective is to nlaxinlize crop production with the nlininlunl anlow~t of water <br />^ The objective is optinluin econonlic returns, rather than siinply nlaxinlizing yields <br />^ Optimuin irrigation may also involve deficit irrigation <br />Reducing CU comes with a cost and nlost often a reduction u1 crop yield, ulcreased <br />nlanagenlent costs, and increased clinlate-based risk. Additional insect, disease and <br />weed problenls are another hazard that must be managed under limited irrigation. As <br />irrigators nlanage reduced water anlowlts closer to the yield margin, higher levels of <br />management and labor are required to nlaultain profitability. <br />Agricultural water conservation measures have <br />been inlplemented in a nunlber of specific <br />situations u1 Colorado. Exanlples include: <br />^ The federally fwlded salulity nlanagenlent <br />prograin on the West Slope where water <br />conservation nleasures, improved irrigation <br />and canal lining were implenlented to reduce <br />deep percolation. <br />^ In 2005 and 2006 sonle San Luis Vallev <br />irrigators volwltarily shut off center pivot end <br />guns to reduce CU by an estiinated 8 percent. <br />Growers over High Plains Aquifer where groundwater levels are declining have <br />adopted cropping patterns that include uzcreasu~g acreage of cool season crops <br />such as wlleat. <br />^ Also on t11e Eastern Plauls, the use of deficit irrigation has been enlployed wllere <br />well capacity cannot meet ET (wells with capacity of less t11an 5 gpm/ acre are <br />usually unable to nleet full ET requireinents during nlid-suninler). <br />^ In the Arkansas Valley, to address inlpacts of an agricultural water transfer, drip <br />systems were cost-sllared l~y a large nlunicipality to reduce evaporative losses. <br />DRAFT 4-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.