Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...~ ... S'" .- 'j" <br />V lJ.c: ,. _ . <br /> <br />Comparison of the figures reveals that non-productive consumptive use from <br />phreatophytes and evaporation is only reduced by 4%. Deep percolation and taiIwater that <br />return to the stream are reduced by 39%. Irrigation efficiency has been improved from 42% <br />to 56%. Interestingly the amount of water deemed "conserved" or"salvaged" is only 420 <br />af/yr, or a one half percent of pre-improvement diversions. The amount of "saved water" <br />measured as the difference in diversions, is 6,820 af/yr, representing 9% of pre-improvement <br />diversions. The amount of "saved water" actually available for transfer would then depend <br />on legal status of the return flows in the particular setting. <br /> <br />While other improvement projects using a different mix of strategies will have different <br />results, the order of magnitude and relative quantities in the example indicate an important <br />distinction between "salvaged water" and "saved water". Generally, the opportunities to <br />reduce consumptive use are limited and do not appear capable of adding large quantities <br />of new supplies to a water shed. Since the volumes of salvaged water are small, a proposed <br />transferable salvage water right may not create the economic incentive envisioned. The <br />salvage water in the Utah example would come at a very high price, ($16,000 per af) and <br />may not provide a viable supply of new water. Indeed, Oregon, which enacted a bill <br />allowing sales of salvaged water in 1987, has seen only one attempt to claim the salvage <br />right established by statute. (O.R.S. Section 537.455, see Appendix C). <br /> <br />D. Municipal and Industrial Water Use Efficiency <br /> <br />Discussion of efficiency improvements and water salvage generally target irrigation use <br />simply because agriculture makes 90% of the water diversions in Colorado. However, it <br />would be misleading to imply that municipal and industrial users do not also have <br />opportunities to improve their use efficiency. While some of the legal and economic issues <br />are different for tbese users, the General Assembly may not want to overlook salvage <br />potentials available to non-agricultural users. <br /> <br />10 <br />