|
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />I
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />.
<br />t
<br />.
<br />
<br />development and use of the state's water resources through secondary water systems. Particularly in
<br />regard to the role of traditional agricultural water suppliers in dual systems, it is anticipated that
<br />landowners, farmers, rural residents, city dwellers, environmental groups, local jurisdictions, and the state
<br />can all benefit from improving the overall economic position of irrigated agriculture. We believe that it
<br />can be demonstrated that not only are canal companies and irrigation districts excellent and very
<br />appropriate entities to enter into pressurized secondary water service, but that in doing so, they will be
<br />strengthened. In turn, the involvement of mutual ditch and irrigation companies, and irrigation districts,
<br />will strengthen the economic position of irrigated agriculture in the state.
<br />
<br />1 These are noted in a short bibliography in an important publication by the American Water Works Association:
<br />Dual Water Systems, American Water Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices, A WW A M24 (1994).
<br />2 We define "pareto optimality" as an economic activity in which one interest group is made better off and no other
<br />interest group is worse off. In the instance being discussed here, agricultural water users are no worse off, while the
<br />new water users (residential users) are better off, when canal companies or irrigation districts enter into secondary
<br />water service.
<br />3 These four companies are the New Cache La Poudre Irrigating Company (Lucerne, Colorado), the Lake Canal
<br />Company (Windsor, Colorado), the Highland Ditch Company (Longmont, Colorado), and the Grand Valley
<br />Irrigation Company (Grand Junction, Colorado).
<br />4 Many Title 32 water districts, better known as rural domestic water suppliers, generously provided us data on their
<br />water supply systems, as well as some small towns in the study area. The rural domestic water supplier providing
<br />funding included the North Weld County Water District (Lucerne, Colorado) and the St. Vrain Left Hand Water
<br />Conservancy District (Longmont, Colorado). The study was also funded by the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (Fort
<br />Collins, Colorado). The two conservancy districts providing funding were the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water
<br />Conservancy District and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
<br />5 These included the East Larimer County Water District (Fort Collins, Colorado), the Fort Collins-Loveland Water
<br />District (Fort Collins, Colorado), the Little Thompson Water District (Berthoud, Colorado), and the Longs Peak
<br />Water District (Longmont, Colorado).
<br />6 Dual Water Systems (2nd Edition), American Water Works Association (1994); To Drink or to Irrigate: Dual
<br />Water Systems Benefit Agricultural and Urban Areas, WaterNews (2002).
<br />7 Nonpotable Water: Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, Windsor, Eaton, Evans, and Water Valley. A Survey.
<br />Applegate Group, Inc. (January, 2002)
<br />8 Following a presentation on our study in Evans, Colorado, Ault, Colorado and Swink, Colorado, it was learned that
<br />these communities have a variety of secondary systems. The City of Evans has six pressurized secondary systems.
<br />These are operated out of ponds fed by local irrigation ditches, or in the case of the older part of town, by open
<br />ditches. This type of secondary system configuration is very common in smaller communities throughout the Rocky
<br />Mountain region. In addition, many small communities, such as Ault, Colorado, and Swink, Colorado, currently
<br />operate (or plan to operate) their secondary system with wells.
<br />9 The subject ofresidential and outdoor landscape water use will be discussed in Chapter 5.
<br />10 Records of regional city water deliveries collected for this study document this summer peak in water use.
<br />II Personal communication with J-U-B Engineers, Inc. This Utah-based engineering firm has built a number of
<br />pressurized secondary water systems along the Wasatch Front Range. The firm is reporting that a three to one ratio
<br />between summer and winter usage (combining both indoor and outdoor water use) more than justifies a
<br />municipality's need for pressurized secondary systems.
<br />12 The City of Fort Collins is a useful example of this, and is observed in its annual water system operating reports.
<br />Annual Operating Reports, City of Fort Collins (1998-2001).
<br />13 As will be discussed later in the report, if the entry of irrigation companies and irrigation districts into secondary
<br />water supply improved the economic position of these traditional agricultural water suppliers, and if some of the
<br />revenue from the provision of pressurized secondary water service were to go into improving water deliveries to
<br />farms (i.e., piped and pressurized irrigation systems to farms, etc), more water could be made available within the
<br />ditch company's service area or to the region through these indirect "water conservation mechanisms."
<br />14 Personal communication with J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Kaysville, Utah. The engineering firm cites these figures for
<br />the City of Clinton and the City of Kaysville, Utah. The engineering firm has constructed pressurized secondary
<br />systems in both of these communities.
<br />
<br />10
<br />
|