My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02037
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02037
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:34:04 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:52:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River Basin - General Publications
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/1/1979
Author
US Forest Service
Title
Managing Vegetation to Increase Flow in the Colorado River Basin - US Forest Service
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.
/
34
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 />000722 <br /> <br />sidered CDStS and benefits Df cDnverting 850,000 <br />acres Df chaparral tD grass. Annual henefits from <br />the mDst favDrable alternative were fDund tD be (1) <br />0.21 acre-fDDt Df increased water yield per acre Df <br />converled chaparral delivered dDwnstream and <br />valued at $12.50 per acre fDDt, (2) 0.24 additiunal <br />animal-unit-mDnth (AUM) per acre Df grazing <br />capacity valued at $5S1 per AUM, and (3) $0.34 <br />per acre reductiDn in firefighting CDStS. The aver- <br />age per-acre annuity benefit ($4.49) minus the an- <br />nuity CDSt ($1.98) left a net average annual return Df <br />$2S1 per cDnverted acre (1972 prices). <br /> <br />While increased forage and reduced firefighting <br />CDStS helped tD defray CDSt Df cDnversiDn and <br />maintenance, the value of the increased water <br />satisfied more then Dne-half Df the tDtal CDSt. AI- <br />thDugh the relative inputs frDm increased forage <br />and reduced firefighting CDStS varied between <br />areas, it seems reasonable to assume that in areas <br />with a benefit-cDst ratiD greater than 1, additiDnal <br />water wDuld be prDduced for less then its valuatiDn <br />Df $12.50 per acre-fDDt. <br /> <br />The value Df additiDnal water is difficult tD de- <br />termine because of the complicated nature of water <br />rights and laws governing water lIse and distribu- <br />tiDn in the Colorado River Basin. SeldDm dD <br />economic principles operate freely to determine <br />the price of water. In the above described economic <br />analysis (T. BrDwn et aL 1974), the average value Df <br />additiDnal water delivered to the Salt River Valley <br />was estimated at $12.50 per acre-foot, including <br />hydroelectric power revenues from water falling <br />through the series of dams in the Salt River abDve <br />PhDenix. The value Df the additiDnal water was <br />based Dn the assumption that the primary user of <br />aoy additiDnal water in the Valley, at least tD the <br />vear 2000. wDuld be the agricultural sector-there <br />being some 1I1llllet demand for \vater to irrigate <br />IDw-valued feed grain and forage crops. All Dther, <br />higher valued demands are already met. The mar- <br />ginal value Df water (that is, the mDst the farmer <br />cuuld pay for additiDnal water and slill pay vari- <br />able CDStS) was estimated al $11.20 per acre-fDDt . <br />(1972 prices) (O'CDnnell 1972, T. Brown et aL <br />1974 ). <br /> <br />The value of water may increase relative to other <br />values and costs in the future as ground water <br />depletes and demand for water increases as a result <br />of anlicipated pDpulatiDIl grDwth and energy de- <br />velDpment within the CDIDrado River Basin. In an- <br />ticipation Df future water shortages, the Central <br />Arizona Project (scheduled for cDmpleliDn in the <br />mid-1980's) will deliver CDloradD River water to <br />central and southern Arizona at a charge of at least <br /> <br />$459 per acre-fDDt fDr municipal-industrial users. <br />Since lhis price reflects willingness to pay, it is <br />suggested that additiDnal lVater frDm vegetatiDn <br />management may be equally valuable in certain <br />areas. <br /> <br />Time Frame for Implementing <br />Water Yield Improvement Practices <br /> <br />LDng-range planning wDuld be required tD fully <br />implement water yield improvement practices <br />Dutlined in this report. In slDw-growing fDrests Df <br />the subalpine zone, harvest rotatiDns are of the <br />order Df 120 years, although full water yield PD- <br />tential cDuld be realized SDDner than the rDtatiDn <br />age of forest trees. However. demand for wood <br />products. physical limitations, and economic con- <br />straints, among others. will prevent rapid im- <br />plementation of \Vater improvement programs. For <br />example, demand for aspen wood products is <br />much too low for an annual harvest of aspen to <br />sustain the water yield potentials projected in ta- <br />bles 4 and 5. Demand for aspen products is ex- <br />pected tD increase (Wengert 1976), but the lime <br />frame is 25 tD 40 years. <br />Some water yield improvement practices could <br />be implemented within a few years; however. that <br />would result in immediate augmentation of water <br />supplies. Type conversion of brush lands to grass is <br />the most prDmising apprDach fDr the LDwer Basin, <br />where the potential in the chaparral has been well <br />researched. and is now in the pilot testing phase. <br />Studies are needed in the Upper Basin tD deter- <br />mine extent and applicability of si milar treatments <br />fDr the mDuntain brush lands. <br /> <br />Other Considerations <br /> <br />Many uses Df the forest are compatible with ef- <br />furts to increase waler yield (fig. 15). Reducing <br />forest cover also improves herbage productiop.. and <br />can significantly reduce fire hazard in certain situ- <br />ations. Treatment may be beneficial for some <br />species Df wildlife and detrimental for Dthers <br />(Franzreb 1977). While scenic beauty usually suf- <br />fers following treatment. the site tends to recover <br /> <br />gin 1974, the Central Anzona Water Conservation Distnct Board <br />set tentative canal side charges for CAP water to M&I users at <br />$32. SO per acre-loot plus $ 13. SO per acre-foot to cover operatIon. <br />mamtenance, and repair costs (for agnculfural users these <br />charges are respectively, $2.00and $1350). These charges can <br />be expected to mcrease with mflatlOn and other causes. Barr and <br />Pmgry (1977) estimated the required canal Side charge to M&I <br />users in 1976 dollars at $51 per acre-foot and the full economic <br />cost at more than $100 per acre-foot, including operation, <br />mamtenance, repair, dislribullon, and treatment costs <br /> <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.