Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />DRAFT 8/24/92, Page 21 <br /> <br />Issues To Be Addressed <br /> <br />There has been concern on the part of some water suppliers that savings from <br />conservation are difficult to quantify and that such savings tend to be temporary. These <br />concerns can be attributed primarily to educational programs to encourage conservation rather <br />than measures incorporating hardware such as plumbing fixtures, meters, or even low water <br />use landscaping and pricing strategies. Municipal water providers must be comfortable that <br />conservation measures will result in quantifiable savings in order to defer new water <br />development projects or to share water savings with other water users. It may be possible to <br />solve this problem through the implementation of monitoring programs designed specifically to <br />document and track the results of water conservation measures and programs. <br /> <br />2. Efficiency in Agricultural Water Use - Opportunities and Limitations <br /> <br />Water consumption in the South Platte River Basin averages approximately 1.527 <br />million acre-feet per year, 82 percent of which is used for irrigated agriculture. (Colorado <br />Water Study, Background Volume, 1981) A one percent (1 %) reduction in 1.259 million acre- <br />feet of water consumed by agriculture would make about 12,590 acre-feet per year available <br />for other uses. It is apparent the relatively small transfers of water from the agricultural sector <br />to domestic and industrial uses could provide significant increases in municipal supply without <br />substantial reductions in irrigated agriculture. One possible mechanism for effectuating such <br />transfers without removing agricultural lands from production would be to improve irrigation <br />efficiency. <br /> <br />Improved efficiency in agriculture could reduce irrigation demands and free-up water for <br />transfer to cities. In California this became the preferred alternative when the Metropolitan <br />Water District, serving the Los Angeles area, lost its bid to build the Peripheral Canal Project. <br />The Metropolitan Water District has entered into an agreement with the Imperial IrrigatiC'n <br />District in which the cities pay for improvements in efficiency and salvage of irrigation return <br />flows in the Imperial Valley. In return, up to 250,000 acre-feet of water may be made <br />available to Southern California cities without significant reductions in agricultural production. <br /> <br />In the South Platte this particular approach is more difficult than in the Imperial Valley <br />because of the general reliance on irrigation return flows to satisfy downstream water rights. <br />Therefore, in some cases this option may be limited to reductions in consumptive use through <br />reduced evaporation from ditches and fields. However, there are many cases where reductions <br />in agricultural diversions through conservation can result in major benefits to municipal water <br />supplies without injury to other water users. <br /> <br />A particular opportunity for increasing agricultural efficiency involves the Grand Valley <br />area of the Colorado River basin. Salinity control measures contemplated for the valley could <br />result in significant reductions in the diversion requirements of the Grand Valley water rights. <br />This could in turn result in more water available for upstream diverters as well as for instream <br />uses. <br /> <br />Issues To Be Addressed <br /> <br />Reductions in "nonbeneficial" consumptive use can sometimes result in changes in <br />riparian areas and wetlands which have previously come into existences because of traditional <br />irrigation practices. The tradeoffs between the water supply benefits and environmental costs <br />of agricultural water conservation programs must therefore be examined carefully. <br />