Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ASPECTS OF PRECIPITATION ENHANCEMENT <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />basin of northern California to be $30/acre-foot. In 1992, the CDWR <br />Drought Water Bank paid $50/acre-foot for real, new water at the Delta <br />in the Sacramento Valley and marketed it for $70-75/acre-foot in the same <br />location after accounting for conveyance losses and other charges. In <br />1991, also critically dry with larger urban shortages, the Water Bank paid <br />$125/ acre-foot which translated into a price of $175/ acre-foot plus trans- <br />portation costs to users south of the Dellta. Water values are at least <br />$150/acre-foot in the south coastal area, and even higher in some local <br />areas in the south. One analysis listed total agricultural and hydrogenera- <br />tion value of water for the Kings River (southwest slope of the Sierra <br />Nevada) at more than $320/acre-foot in 1986 (Romm and Ewing 1987). <br />Opportunities to generate additional water by cloud seeding are gener- <br />ally fewer in the south, but the higher value may make projects with <br />lower yield worthwhile. <br /> <br />2.2.2.4 Colorado. Approx,mately 70% of Colorado's water is supplied <br />by snowmelt runoff (Sherretz and Loehr 1983), and snow is extremely <br />valuable while on the mountains because winter sports have surpassed <br />agriculture as the state's leading industry. Six major runoff-producing <br />areas within the Colorado River ,Basin have a total high-water yield area <br />of 58,500 square kilometers. If cloud seeding could produce 1.43 X 106 <br />acre-foot annually within the Upper Basin (approximately 10% of the <br />average annual streamflow) and an additional 0.83 X 106 acre-foot in the <br />lower and adjacent basins, of the total, "approximately... 1.7 X 106 <br />acre-foot would be available to reduce deficits and meet new demands. <br />Valuing this water at ... $30/acre-foot, the total benefit from additional <br />water would be $48.5 million/year" (Lease 1985). This estimate is based <br />on a computer simulation of the impact of additional runoff produced by <br />cloud seeding. The model of the Colorado River reflects water availabil- <br />ity, salinity, and demands on water by municipal, industrial, energy, <br />agricultural, and other users. Based on projected time and water demand <br />relationships made for points along the river, the impact on river water <br />supply and quality can be predicted (Lease 1985). <br />The possible increases in streamflow from cloud seeding could signifi- <br />cantly increase the quantity and value of energy output from small- scale <br />hydropower facilities in Colorado (Loehr et al. 1983). Given a value on <br />electric power, Loehr et al. developed a method for evaluating the impact <br />of weather modification from a run-of-river facility and a conventional <br />dam. They found the wholesale value of power from such facilities <br />ranged from $0.014-0.12/kilowatt-hour, depending on the circumstances <br />in which the energy is produced and used. For two sites studied, they <br />estimated that a 15% increase in April 30 snow water equivalent increases <br />electric energy output by 3.5-6.1 % and its value by 5.0-9.9% annually. <br />For the Colorado ski industry, any delay in opening-day / early-season <br />snowfall, or slow business at Christmas due to lack of snow, substantially <br />affects the state's economy. Sherretz (1983) statistically estimated that <br />15% snowfall increases for hypothetical dry winters at Colorado ski areas <br />