Laserfiche WebLink
Section 2 <br />lntroduction <br />2. Water conservation options that result in additional water from irrigated <br />agriculture are linuted to those that reduce evaporation or crop consumptive uses. <br />As a result, nlanageinent practices that result in improved irrigation efficiency do <br />not necessarily yield transferal~le supplies. Diverted water that is not consumed <br />by senior appropriators belongs to t11e streanl systenl and thus ofller water right <br />holders. <br />3. Wide-scale adoption of water conservation practices designed to increase <br />diversion efficiencies 11as the potential of altering basul hydrology by reducing the <br />inagnitude and timing of return flows. <br />4. Another possible unuztended consequence of basul-wide increases in diversion <br />efficiency is increased consumptive irrigation water use. This would occur as a <br />consequence of irrigators, operating withul their decrees usulg the conserved <br />water from more efficient diversions to fill sllortages. Increased consumptive use <br />would affect basin 1lydrology and eventually result in reduced return flows. <br />Conversion to inlproved irrigation efficiency systems, e.g., flood to sprinklers, <br />nlay result u1 an ulcrease u1 consumptive use. <br />5. The potential for future agricultural water conservation in Colorado varies greatly <br />among basins. More importantly, policy initiatives designed to encourage <br />conservation should be based on how water is used at the basul level rather than <br />at the individual farm level. Also, inlpacts of water conservation strateb es on <br />interstate compact obligations must be considered. <br />6. Much of the irrigation uzfrastructure u1 our river basuls dates fronl t11e late 1800s <br />and could benefit froin upgrading. However, under current water law, there is <br />little personal ulcentive for irrigators to invest u1 upgrading irrigation <br />infrastructure. <br />7. Major canals that are currently unlined support extensive vegetation resulting in <br />significant conveyance losses in the form of non-crop consunlptive use. <br />Many other reports and studies have concluded tllat opportunities to provide for <br />nleeting future water supply needs with agricultural water conservation nleasures are <br />linuted and potentially can result in injury to vested Colorado water rights, wetlands, <br />groundwater levels, and streanlflows. These reports, which have been used u1 <br />developing fllis paper, include: <br />^ Menlorandunl to South Platte Task Force. Aru1e Castle and Bill Caile, Holland and <br />Hart. July 12, 2007. <br />^ SWSI Phase 2 Technical Round Table Report on Alternatives to Pernlanent <br />Agricultural Dry-up prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. CDM <br />(Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.). Novenlber, 2007. <br />DRAFT 2-3 <br />