30 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2008
• Description: IWMD Section - Presentation of Agricultural Water Conservation Paper
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Section 5
Legal and Engineering Considerations
Salvaged and Saved Water
Within the context of the above discussion, two concepts have emerged from case
law-salvaged water and saved water.
^ Salvaged Water is generally viewed as water that results f rom reducing
nonproductive consumptive use of water such as by the cutting or removal of
phreatophytes.
^ Saved Water is generally viewed as water that results from more efficient diversion
and application methods.
Much of the debate over water conservation indicates that imprecise use of
terminology creates confusion and often obscures the real policy considerations. A
better evaluation of the role of saved or salvaged will be f ostered by the use of
consistent language and an understanding of irrigation water use.
In 1974, the Colorado Supreme Courtin Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. V.
Shelton Farms (1974) ruled that water salvaged by the removal of phreatophytes
("water-loving" plants such as tamarisk and cottonwoods) belongs to the river system
and is subject to administration in order of priority. Water salvaged by reducing
evaporation or cutting vegetation does not belong to the person responsible f or the
salvage and cannot result in a new water right, free of the river's call. The Courtin
Shelton Farms stated that while landowners are prohibited from claiming water rights
by cutting down phreatophytes, there is a need f or the Legislature to address the
issue. Phreatophyte management is an important issue in Colorado and incentives
should be created f or landowners to actively eradicate these invasive species. If
phreatophytes were eliminated on a wide-scale basis, Colorado could see significant
amounts of water made available f or appropriation.
With regard to salvaged water, there are at least two statutory clarifications to the
salvaged water concept that allow reservoirs and gravel pits to take credit against
their evaporative losses for vegetation that was eradicated by inundation of the water
surf ace.
Over the last two decades, there have been attempts to create legislation that would
provide the right to sell, transfer, and/ or reuse water resulting f rom salvaged, saved
or conserved concepts. This in part has contributed to the confusion over the terms
"salvaged" and "saved" water. An attempt was made to address the issue of "saved"
water in 1991 when HB 91-111 o was introduced as a bill allowing the sale, transfer, or
reuse of "saved water" as long as it caused no injury to any downstream water right
holders. This bill was not adopted.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board, in a 1992 Report to the Legislature,
presented an analysis of salvaged water issues in Colorado. Anne Castle and Bill Caile
of Holland and Hart authored a memo on Salvaged Water that was presented to the
DRAFT 5-5