Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, . .... .,. <br />M.:;l):J <br /> <br />pre-improvement diversions. In that same case the amount of "saved water", measured as <br />the difference in diversions, is 6,310 af/year, representing 8% of pre-improvement <br />diversions. The amount of "saved water" actually available for new uses or transfer would <br />depend on the legal status of the 12,000 af of reduced return flows in that particular setting. <br />The difference between 420 af and 6,310 af (or 2,005 af and 18,190 af in Case Ill) highlights <br />the distinction between salvaged and saved water. <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, opportunities to reduce <br />consumptive use are limited and do not appear capable of adding large quantities.ofnew <br />supplies to a watershed. Since the volumes of salvaged water are relatively sml\ll, a <br />proposed transferable salvage water right may not create the economic incentive envisioned. <br />The salvage water irl the examples would come at a high price, ($300-600 per year pet at), <br />and may not provide a viable supply of new water. However, in the examples saved water <br />appears to be available at an annual cost of $35 to $125 per af. <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 />may be different for these users, the General Assembly may not want to overlook salvage <br />potentials available to non-agricultural users. <br /> <br />Municipalities are generally allowed to expand their use of decreed water rights in the <br />sense that they need not divert the full decreed amount immediately to claim it. The "great <br />and growing cities" doctrine allows a city to secure more water than it currently can use so <br />that it may meet anticipated future needs. By conserving water cities are able to stretch out <br />the time period over which they "grow into" their decreed rights, and forestall additiOnal <br />facility construction and water rights acquisitions. When cities establish effective <br />conservation programs they are not inclined to transfer the saved increment to new uses. <br />Rather they retain any savings for their own future customers, a form of expanded use which <br />is allowed under Colorado law. <br /> <br /> <br />An additional reason municipalities do not need salvage rights is because a significant <br />portion of their water supplies are considered fully consumable. Supplies which come from <br />transmountain imports are considered developed water which is outside of the priority <br />system. Converted irrigation rights have already been reduced to historical consumptive use <br />during the change of water rights adjudication and can thus be used to extinction. With <br />these sources of water there is no real distinction between diversion rights and historical <br />consumptive use. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />