344 



allocated to rates, they are allocated to all firm loads and are 

 not seasonal! zed. 



This arrangement raises several equity questions. First, 

 the irrigation sector has placed much less resource acc[uisition 

 need on the region compared to other sectors. However, the 

 irrigation sector pays for conservation resource acquisition 

 through increases in the PF rate even though its need for new 

 resources is much less than other sectors. Second, the higher rate 

 of conservation payments to winter peaking utilities, coupled with 

 their customers' reduced power bill payments, has the end effect 

 that irrigation customers of NIU members not only receive 

 proportionately less conservation funding, their customers receive 

 less benefits while shouldering a greater proportional share of new 

 resource acquisition costs. Third, it appears quite likely that 

 significant irrigation efficiency measures are being paid for by 

 private capital rather than Bonneville programmatic dollars. The 

 bottom line is that irrigators are not only paying a 

 disproportionate share of conservation program costs for others, 

 and receiving less benefits, they are also using their own dollars 

 to fund on-farm conservation efforts which reduce demand on BPA. 



E. Value Added to BPA Through Water and Energy Conservation 

 Programs Carried out by Irrigation Utilities. Another system 

 benefit which NIU members and irrigators can and are providing to 

 BPA is the value of water and energy savings through expanded on- 

 farm energy and water conservation programs. 



Irrigated agriculture withdraws only 5 to 7 percent of 

 stream flows. Thus, even a significant improvement in water use 

 efficiency is likely to result in only a fractional improvement in 

 stream flows. Nevertheless, water efficiency measures adopted by 

 irrigators may provide important benefits by increasing water 

 availability and water quality at particular times of the year in 

 specific situations to help meet BPA's in-stream fish and wildlife 

 requirements. 



In 1991 BPA challenged NIU to submit a proposal to BPA 

 which would provide for an increased NIU role and irrigator 

 involvement in regional energy and water conservation programs. 

 NIU responded to this challenge by submitting a proposal for "Phase 

 One" of a comprehensive energy and water conservation program which 

 we called the "NIU Waterwise" progreun. 



The NIU Waterwise program was designed to significantly 

 increase the market penetration of existing BPA irrigation energy 

 conservation (hardware retrofit) programs and to make water use 

 efficiency activities an explicit program objective. The NIU 

 Waterwise program involved increasing technical assistance to 

 farmers for on-farm energy and water conservation through improved 



12 



