43 C.F.R. § 418.12
(c) Assuming the headgate deliveries are valid and enforceable, conveyance efficiency is the only remaining variable in determining the quantity of water needed to be supplied to the District. Conveyance efficiency is a measure of how much water is released into the irrigation system relative to actual headgate deliveries. Differences in efficiency, therefore, are directly convertible to acre-feet. The differences in efficiency, expressed as a quantity in acre-feet, may be added to or subtracted from the actual Lahontan Reservoir storage level before it is compared to the monthly storage objective. Thus, the diversions from the Truckee River, operation of other facilities (e.g., Stampede Reservoir) and decisions related to Lahontan Reservoir are made after the efficiency storage adjustments have been made. Operating decisions are made as if the adjusted storage reflected actual conditions.
(4) Available conservation measures. The water conservation measures referred to in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and others currently available to the District are listed in the following table. The table has been revised based upon the Bureau of Reclamation's Final Report to Congress of the Newlands Project Efficiency Study, 1994.
| Conservation measures1 | Expected savings in acre-feet (AF) per year2 | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Water ordering | 1,000 | Require 48-hour advance notice. |
| 2. Adjust Lahontan Dam releases frequently | + + 3 | Match releases to demand with daily adjustments. |
| 3. Increase accuracy of delivery records and measurement devices | 12,000 | Account for deliveries to nearest cfs and to nearest minute. |
| 4. Change operation of regulating reservoirs | ??4 | Eliminate use of all or parts of regulating reservoirs; drain at end of season. |
| 5. Shorten irrigation season | 4,000 | Reduce by 2 weeks. |
| 6. Control delivery system | + + | Eliminate spills, better scheduling, grouping deliveries. |
| 7. System improvements | ?? | O&M activity: repair leaky gates, reshape canals, improve measuring devices. |
| 8. Dike off 2/3 S-Line Reservoir | 2,720 | 500 ft. dike; (5′ evaporation, 0.75′ seepage). |
| 9. Dike off south half of Harmon Reservoir | 2,130 | 5,000 ft. dike; large savings considering canal losses (5′ evap., 1.8′ seepage). |
| 10. Dike off west half of Sheckler Reservoir | 2,400 | 6,000 ft. dike. |
| 11. Eliminate use of Sheckler Reservoir | 4,000 | Use for Lahontan spill capture only; restore 200 ft. of E-Canal; A-Canal is OK. |
| 12. Line 20 miles of Truckee Canal5 | 20,000 | Reduces O&M. |
| 13. Line large canals | 26,100-31,000 | Line large net losers first. |
| 14. Line regulatory reservoirs | 2.3 AF/acre | |
| 15. Reuse drain water for irrigation | 7,100 | Assuming blended water quality would be adequate |
| 16. Ditch rider training each year | ?? | |
| 17. Canal automation | ?? | Reduced canal fluctuations. |
| 18. Community rotation system | ?? | Grouping deliveries by area. |
| 19. Reclamation Reform Act water conservation plan: | ?? | District implementation of water conservation plan. |
| a. Weed and phreatophyte control | ||
| b. Fix gate leaks | ||
| c. Water measurement | ||
| d. Automation | ||
| e. Communication | ||
| 20. Pumps and wells for small diverters | 400 | |
| 21. Water pricing by amount used | + + | Incurs administrative costs to implement. |
| 22. Incentive programs | ?? | For District personnel and/or water users. |
| 23. Drain canals | 1,065 | At the end of each irrigation season. |
| 24. Acquire parcels with inefficient delivery6 | 22,280 | Acquire and retire water rights from irrigated acreage with particularly inefficient delivery. Lesser savings from transferring water rights to lands with more efficient delivery. |
| 1 The first seven measures were considered in developing the water budget in Table 1 for the 1988 OCAP. Additional measures could be implemented by the District to help achieve efficiency requirements. | ||
| 2 Water savings have been updated in accordance with Bureau of Reclamation's Report to Congress on Newlands Project Efficiency, April 1994. | ||
| 3 + + indicates a positive number for savings but not quantifiable at this time. | ||
| 4?? indicates uncertainty as to savings. | ||
| 5 This measure was included in the 1988 OCAP and effects overall Project efficiency; it is recognized that savings from this measure are not accounted for in the OCAP. | ||
| 6 Identified in the 1994 BOR Efficiency Study: 31 Corporation, below Sagouspe Dam, and N Canal. |