421 



"One of the major benefits that is excluded from this 

 analysis is the potential for improved irrigation scheduling 

 to result in increased water supplies within the Pacific 

 Northwest's hydroelectric system. These additional supplies 

 could be used to generate more hydroelectric power and/or 

 enhance fish runs within the region's rivers and streams. It 

 is generally believed that the indirect loss of energy from 

 withdrawing water from the region's hydroelectric system for 

 irrigation is significantly larger than the direct use of 

 energy for irrigation pumping. Thus, inclusion of the 

 indirect energy savings from reduced water usage through 

 improved scheduling could have a significant impact upon 

 future studies of the energy-conservation potential of 

 improved schedu 1 i ng . " 27) 



Seven years later BPA still has not evaluated the potential 

 for improved irrigation scheduling in terms of the potential for 

 increased water supplies in the Columbia River system. The reason 

 for this ommission is clear enough: unlike capital subsidies in the 

 retrofitting of irrigation hardware, irrigation scheduling and 

 deficit irrigation require modifications in irrigator behavior, and 

 the modification of behavior requires, among other things, a strong 

 incentive. The obvious incentives are either the scarcity or high 

 cost of irrigation water, or the high cost of irrigation power. 



5.0 MIU's Proposal for Administrative Control of tihe Water Wise 

 Progrcui Will Perpetuate BPA's Failures to Set and Accoaplish 

 Reasonable Po«fer and Water Conservation Goals 



5.1 Task III in NllJ's 28 August "lapleaentation Plan- is 

 redundant and will yield skewed "Baseline" results. 



Baseline studies have been accomplished in 1989 studies by 

 Northwest Economic Associates, Vol 2, "The Role of Electricity in 

 Pacific Northwest Irrigated Agriculture," and elsewhere. Baseline 

 studies conducted on the basis of irrigators' power and water usage 

 will in any case be inflated by the effects of BPA's irrigation 

 discount since 1985 and would, to that extent, beg the question of 

 appropriate allocations of water and power to irrigated 

 agriculture. 



5.2 Research and analytic components of the MID proposal 

 contain no provisicm for establishment of qpiantif iable trater and 

 conservation goals by Agricultural Production Area and omit to 

 establish water and energy savings coefficients with tihich to 

 establish separable water conservation goals. 



5.3 MIU's proposal contains no assessment of the hydropower 

 savings avaialable through instream water recapture consequent upon 

 the various conservation methods. 



5.4 NIU's primary constituency is large irrigators who are 



10 



