420 



reports documenting the magnitude of irrigated agriculture's 

 inefficiencies in the Columbia River system, that in none of the 

 several studies commissioned by the agency on the subject of 

 irrigation on the Basin has there been any attempt to estimate the 

 potentially great hydropower revenues recapturable through price- 

 and program- induced water conservation measures in this segment of 

 industrial energy demand. 



The same failure to make this linkage in conseirvation planning 

 obscures the ratepayer savings possible in BPA's implementation of 

 its irrigator conservation program, Water Wise. 



4.0 BPA's Failure to Set Specific and Proportionate E n ergy and 

 Water Conservation Goals is Inconsistent With the Agency's Dirties 

 Under the Regional Act and Entails Substantial Costs for All Other 

 Ratepayers 



4.1 BPA's goal of 17 average BegaHatts in conservation savings 

 in irrigated agriculture substantially underestimates the water and 

 power conservation savings available in the industry. 



A Northwest Economic Associates study reported in 1986 that 

 energy conservation savings of 120 avg. MW were available in 

 irrigated agriculture, based on detailed studies by Battel le, 

 commissioned by the Agency. 26) BPA's goal of 17 avg. MW in 

 conservation in this industry by the year 2000 is less than half of 

 the industry's share of BPA's conservation goal of 600 MW, based on 

 total customer load, and less than 20% of the savings identified as 

 technically available in irrigated agriculture. 



4.2 BPA's failure to establish specific e n ergy-water savings 

 coefficients for the various irrigation conservation methods 

 precludes the establishment of achievable water conservation goals. 



Significant differences in water savings exist relative to the 

 major conservation methods employable in irrigated agriculture. 

 Pumping and transmission system efficiencies produce little or no 

 water savings, for example. At the other extreme, imrigation 

 scheduling and deficit irrigation yield substantial savings in 

 water usage, while low pressure applications yield mid-range 

 efficiencies in application of irrigation water. BPA's Water Wise 

 program c ur r ent ly contains no mechanism for establishing priorities 

 among these methods based upon separable water savings targets. 



4.3 BPA has declined to evaluate the h ydro po w e r re ca p tur e 

 potential of water-conserving methods and thus has no realistic 

 basis for assessing the relatiive cost-benefits of the various 

 energy-conserving methods in irrigated agriculture. 



A 1985 Battelle study of the conservation opportunities of 

 improved irrigation scheduling pointed out to BPA that. 



