C150069 Benefits & Potential Roles Report

• Contract/PO #: C150069
• Contractor Name: Colorado State University
• Contract Type: MOU
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Report

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was funded by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and several water districts in
the Colorado Front Range. The study was designed to assess the benefits and costs of pressurized dual
water systems, with an emphasis on the most effective way for the state to promote these systems. Dual
water systems provide separate, noncontiguous, pressurized treated and untreated water lines into
residential lots. The pressurized untreated water line is referred to as the secondary water system, and is
used for landscape purposes. The study focused on the potential role of traditional agricultural water
suppliers (Le. canal companies and irrigation districts) in developing, operating and maintaining
secondary systems around the state. The study drew heavily upon important innovations in secondary
systems occurring in other areas of the Rocky Mountain region.

A major conclusion was that there is an important connection between the involvement of
traditional agricultural water suppliers in providing secondary water service and the strengthening of the
economic position of irrigated agriculture in the state. This strengthening occurs principally by way of
(I) the continued beneficial use of irrigation water freed up as a result of residential and commercial land
development in the service areas of canal companies and irrigation districts, and (2) the utilization of
revenue earned from providing secondary water service to modernize irrigation canals. While water
remains attached to the service areas of these enterprises, the revenue earned can finance significant canal
system upgrades, thereby allowing farmers to move toward more efficient on-farm irrigation methods.
Significant improvements in water conservation and water quality occur in the process. It is shown that
water rights are not affected in the process, nor is the value of water owned by farmers wishing to leave
agriculture materially affected.

A second important conclusion is that the involvement of canal companies and irrigation districts
in the provision of pressurized untreated water is an important drought mitigation strategy for the state.
The development of secondary water systems is very compatible with such ideas as water banking and
interruptible supplies. However, the development of more integrated and centralized secondary water
systems, as described in this report, is expected to stretch present potable water supplies and treatment
capacity farther into the future. Since potable water is commonly used to irrigate landscapes around the
state, every unit of pressurized untreated water developed for residential landscape use frees up a
comparable unit of potable water and treatment capacity. This reduces the need for municipalities to
include landscape water use in their "drought yield" projections. The development of secondary water
systems operated and managed by canal companies and irrigation districts represents a new partnership
between urban and agricultural water users. It is a partnership that benefits municipalities, agriculture,
developers, and homeowners, while addressing environmental concerns.

Water conservation is an essential part of addressing future water shortages. Water conserved in
agricultural production is expected to be an important source of future urban water supplies. However,
water conservation in agriculture comes at a cost. It involves canal delivery improvements, as well as
improvements in the use of water on the farm. To ask farmers to pay for conserving water, in order that
water can be made more available for urban uses, seems highly inequitable. By allowing, and promoting,
the involvement of canal companies and irrigation districts in secondary water management, new water
conservation technologies can be paid for by revenue earned from residential water users, rather than
being paid for by already scarce farm income. This is a valuable income transfer to irrigated agriculture,
but one that actually involves a reduced cost to residential water users as well. These reduced savings in
residential water costs are transferred from financing additional treatment facilities to financing canal
infrastructure improvements. Treatment facilities do not conserve water. Canal improvements and on-
farm irrigation improvements do conserve water, but they must be financed by those who will use the