My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00217
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00217
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:13:17 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:35:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8054.100
Description
Water Salvage - Water Salvage Study - HB 91-1154
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
11/7/1991
Author
Colorado DNR
Title
Salvage Previous Drafts - An Analysis of Water Salvage Issues in Colorado - Various Drafts - Part III
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />O-"-')~ <br />v(.__", <br /> <br />generalities fail to recognize the intricate movement of water through a river system. <br />Further, it is tempting to classify conveyance losses as non-beneficial uses of water, but, in <br />fact, the water used (either consumptively or non-consumptively) this way actual serves the <br />necessary and beneficial purpose of moving the water to its place of need. It is only when <br />the means of conveyance are nQ1 "reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient <br />practices" that these losses should be characterized as "non-beneficial." Section 37-92-193(4), <br />c.R.S. <br /> <br />What "reasonably efficient practices" means is central to statements about the efficiency <br />and waste involved in irrigation water use. A co=on perception is that beneficial use is <br />a flexible concept, and may tolerate whatever degree of "inefficiency" "is present in the <br />prevailing irrigation methods of an area. Courts will likely be reluctant to require <br />innovations With private investment to force any advance beyond those prevailing methods. <br />Likewise, the State Engineer can probably not curtail inefficient uses and require state-of- <br />the-art irrigation systems. However, the legislature, as the best arbiter of public perceptions <br />and desires, may be in better position to balance policy questions and decide to move water <br />users towards more efficient practices. It can do so by providing incentives (funding or <br />creating a marketable right as proposed in the salvage bills) or by regulating (i.e., by <br />declaring what "reasonably efficient practices" are necessary and thereby tightening the <br />definition of beneficial use). Similar approaches have already been applied to m,unicipal <br />users, i.e., financial and technical assistance on the one hand and mandatory plumbing code <br />revisions containing maximum fixture demands on the otber. <br /> <br />Absent regulation, current conditions give some incentives for irrigators to make <br />improvements to their systems. Some of the reasons cited by irrigators making efficiency <br />improvements include the labor savings whiCh result from modern delivery and application <br />systems, lower chemical (fertilizer and pesticide) and water costs when application rates are <br />reduced, fear of liability resulting from open and/or leaky ditches, concern With local <br />groundwater quality, to stretch available water supply to provide increased crop yields, and <br />availability of financial assistance through existing federal and state programs. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.