My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05791
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05791
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:53 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:17:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8054.100
Description
Water Salvage - Water Salvage Study - HB 91-1154
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
12/6/1990
Author
Natural Resources La
Title
Background Documents and Information 1991 - Discussion Papers on Irrigation Water Supply Organizations
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.
/
66
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 />00106:. <br /> <br />signal without necessarily raising more than average~st-based revenue requirements. One way <br /> <br /> <br />of designing inverted blocks (among several that appear promising) is by pricing that amount of <br /> <br /> <br />water needed to meet crop ET plus leaching equal to a districts' average cost of water. . All <br /> <br /> <br />water above that amount would be priced to reflect some understandable concept of the <br /> <br /> <br />opportunity cost of water that is not really needed to grow the crops. Implementation of this <br /> <br /> <br />type of rate design requires metering and information regarding the crops a particular farmer <br /> <br /> <br />grows. Absent an internal problem in the district, like drainage, or amendment of state transfer <br /> <br /> <br />laws to permit districts to transfer conserved water at value, there may be little support for. <br /> <br />inverted block rates. Districts can also lower "use it or lose it" policies they apply in the <br />allocation of water. <br /> <br />3. The bureau can help as follows: (a) It could abandon federal interpretations of the <br /> <br /> <br />meaning of "beneficial use" and "appurtenance", as mentioned in section 8 of the Reclamation <br /> <br /> <br />Act (This does put a burden on the states to get their act together in this area as well.); (b) <br /> <br /> <br />It needs to let market forces gradually make inroads into the allocation of water it provides, <br /> <br /> <br />thus following its own 1988 Water Marketing Policy Statement; (c) It needs to step up its <br /> <br /> <br />assistance to districts and growers in the conservation area, not through regulations (which may <br /> <br /> <br />not work where the bureau is concerned), but through information and technical assistance; and <br /> <br /> <br />(d) It should take steps to make the reclamation-law rules-of-the-road clear as the bear on <br /> <br /> <br />conservation and transfer of conserved water provided by the bureau. The Water Marketing <br /> <br /> <br />Policy Statement and follow-up Criteria and Guidance are a good start, but more clarification is <br />needed. <br /> <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.