Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Administrative, Institutional, and Structural Characteri~tics of an Active Water Market <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Michelsen, 1994), The long-run yield of C-BT units <br />has averaged 0.73 acre-foot per unit. Annual deliver. <br />ies have averaged 65 peT cent of the 310,000 maxi- <br />mum acre-feet over the same period, Yield <br />corTesponds to the quota, or the annual quantity of <br />water declaTed available for use, whereas deliveries <br />represent the quantity of water actually used, It is <br />interesting to note that water users take relatively <br />less of their allotment during low-quota years than <br />they do during high-quota years. Annual deliveries <br />average 81 percent of the quota when the latter is less <br />than 75 percent (typically wet years), and 90 percent <br />when the quota is 75 percent or above (dry years), <br />(Water Strategist, 1990), That is, more imported CB.T <br />water is demanded when native or base supplies are <br />low in the Sooth Platte river basin, <br /> <br />S <br />'Y <br />'.y <br />,t <br />,0 <br />e <br /> <br />Quota (%) <br />120 J <br />j <br />100 -i- <br />1 <br />80 l <br />sol <br /> <br />Deliveries (kAF) <br />! 350 <br />, 300 <br />'250 <br /> <br />200 <br />150 <br />100 <br />50 <br /> <br />y <br />p <br />,d <br /> <br />;. <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />in <br />th <br />11e <br />of <br />he <br /> <br />o <br />1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 <br /> <br />DApril Quota (%) DAdditionaJ Quota (%) - Deliveries (AF) <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Figure 1. CBT Quota and Annual Deliveries. <br /> <br />ITO. <br />ler- <br />be <br />ich <br />" of <br />1.60 <br />set <br />nofT <br />tici. <br />nay <br />ired <br />:ven <br />,0 to <br />the <br />os to <br />lope <br />nOTe <br />,lope <br /> <br />The water supply available from the C-BT project <br />can be expected to be reliable. An allotment quota of <br />70 percent or greater was declared in 22 out of 37 <br />years of operation (60 percent of the time), In only two <br />years was a quota of less than 60 percent declared <br />(five percent of the time); and a quota of90 percent or <br />greater has been declared in 9 years, about 25 percent <br />of the time, <br />Water deliveries also consist of two other types of <br />project water, carry.over water and non-charge water, <br />A carry-over policy was introduced in 1986, Prior to <br />this time, an allottee's unused water would be stored <br />to increase the project water available in subsequent <br />years for all contract allottees, With the carry.over <br />policy, water unused by an allottee in a particular <br />water year can be carried over for use from April 1 to <br />,July 15 of the following year, increasing flexibility in <br />the way project water can be used, <br />During high runoff years, when C.BT storage is <br />fully utilized, non-charge (unappropriated surplus) <br /> <br />otas <br />and <br /> <br />water may be released into the district's service area. <br />Allocation of non-charge water is managed by river <br />commissioneTs, and does not necessarily correspond <br />to the contract allotments, Non.charge plus carry-over <br />water deliveries are significant and, although only <br />provided in twelve years, they have averaged 27,499 <br />acre-feet per year or 12,2 percent of annual project <br />deliveries for the period from 1962 through 1993, <br /> <br />C-BT WATER OWNERSHIP AND USE <br /> <br />The majority of C-BT units have traditionally been <br />owned by the agricultural sector, However, C-BT unit <br />ownership patterns have changed significantly during <br />the past three decades (Figure 2). In 1962, agriculture <br />held 82 percent of the total number of C.BT units, <br />Since then, municipalities and industries have been <br />bidding water away from use in irrigation to cover <br />their immediate and future demands, In thirty years, <br />municipal holdings more than doubled, from 18 per- <br />cent of the total to over 40 percent. It should be noted <br />that industrial holdings were originally combined <br />with the municipal holdings, which explains the <br />apparent absence of C-BT ownership in the industrial <br />sector in 1962 (most of the industrial acquisition has <br />occurred since 1962), During the same time, the rela- <br />tive quantity of C-BT units owned by the agricultural <br />sector shrank from more than 80 percent to about 55 <br />percent, <br /> <br />1962 and 1992 <br /> <br />Agriculture <br />82% <br /> <br />Agriculture <br />55% <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Industry <br />4% <br /> <br />M :, I Industry <br />unlclpa OO/C <br />16% 0 <br /> <br />Municipal <br />41% <br /> <br />1962 <br /> <br />1992 <br /> <br />Figure 2. Ownership Evolution or CBT Shares. <br /> <br />Reflecting of the shift in ownership, irrigated <br />acreage within the NCWCD has been shrinking over <br />the past 30 years. From 720,000 iTrigated acres in <br />1960, the total had fallen to 622,272 acres in 1993 <br />(NCWCD), The main crops produced are com (grain <br /> <br />975 <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN <br />