Laserfiche WebLink
➢ Treated water distribution system standard of no more than 5% leaks /unaccounted losses <br />between the treatment plan and the faucet (inclusive of customers' laterals); 15 -year timeline <br />for achievement, supported by CWCB loan money, for small systems; <br />➢ Maximum irrigated lawn sizes or a tap fee surcharge for larger lawns; and <br />➢ Xeriscape promotion programs (e.g., tap fee rebate for Xeriscape). <br />C. Municipal - Agricultural Cooperation <br />Given the existing physical links between municipal and agricultural water supply systems, the <br />potential for enhancing those links, and the relative value of water in municipal and agricultural <br />uses, some movement of water from irrigation to households and industries is inevitable. The <br />challenge is one of protecting agricultural interests and rural economies while at the same time <br />making it possible for those who own agricultural water rights to enjoy some of the benefits of <br />allowing their water to be used, from time to time, in higher value applications. <br />Resistance to agricultural- municipal transfers is usually based on the conventional view (that <br />water is the sine qua non of a region's economy) and, thus, that removing water from agriculture <br />would have significant negative economic effects. In fact, there is little evidence to support this <br />hypothesis. In the sectors losing water (generally forage, and food and feed grain production), <br />the net economic value foregone for a 10 to 20 percent supply reduction will usually fall in the <br />range of $5 to $30 per acre -foot. On the other hand, the gain in net value of product or in a <br />municipality's willingness to pay is likely to be at least five to ten times as high. Indirect <br />impacts, measured by income from primary regional resources ( "value added ") and by <br />employment per unit of water (including multiplier effects), indicate that these secondary losses <br />associated with transferring water from agriculture, while not insignificant in terms of either <br />income flows or employment, are dwarfed by the gains in nonagricultural sectors. In particular, <br />the sectors most likely to be affected (again, forage, and food and feed grains) yield relatively <br />small indirect employment and income effects (per dollar of income) when compared to those for <br />emerging urban sectors. <br />The economic interests of farmers whose water is transferred to urban uses are generally <br />protected by existing state institutions, but transaction costs may be high and decisions binary, <br />i.e., water is sold or not sold. More flexible and imaginative alternatives are needed, including <br />agricultural - municipal drought insurance (an annual premium payment by cities to farmers for <br />the right to call out the irrigators in very dry years) or the right to move conserved irrigation <br />water to municipal uses. Given the relative amounts of water allocated to irrigation and <br />municipal use, making 10% of agricultural supplies available to urban users (at fair prices) under <br />drought leasing arrangements could increase firm urban supplies by as much as 25% or more. <br />D. Supply Integration, Management and Development <br />All supply options should honor the five basic principles identified in Section I.D. Many of the <br />ongoing development activities described below (and some described in Section V as well) do. <br />They are organized by sub -basin and include observations, recommendations and caveats <br />associated with their relative merits. <br />43 <br />