WSP08835

• File Number: 8149.100
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - NRCS-Ft Lyon Canal Co Limestone Graveyard Creeks
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 6/2/1993
• Author: Gronning Engineering
• Title: Ft Lyon Canal Company Water Transfer Alternatives Study Phase I Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0074

u

I,"
Transfer of water will ~esult in loss of farming/ranching jobs. (Howe, Lazo and Weber 1990):

a. If water is reallocated to other uses within the study area there will be some
additional job growth in other sectors.
b. Substantial economic development efforts would be needed to maximize job growth
if water is reallocated within the state to other uses.

Transfer of water will result in loss of agribusiness sales (farm machinery, fuel, seed, herbicides)
and jobs related to processing or transporting agricultural products (Taylor & Young 1991, 296-
297):

a. Loss of agricultural production and agribusiness sales will reduce retail and
wholesale trade in the study area due to negative multiplier effect.

b. If and when out-migration follows loss of local jobs, there will be further reduction
of retail and wholesale trade in the study area.

c. Loss of retail and wholesale trade will cause some local businesses to close or
relocate outside the study area, reducing the vitaliry of the community and its
attractiveness to new economic development.

Financial burdens are imposed upon other water users. They frequently participate in water court
cases for the purpose of protecting supplies, and must bear the expense of expert advice from
attorneys, hydrologists, agronomists and water quality consultants. Currently there is no provision
for transfer of those expenses to applicants for a transfer, (except C.R.S. 37-92-304(3.5) as to
mutual agricultural ditch shareholders) and the burden of those expenses discourages objectors
from addressing their concerns in court. An argument in favor of the existing process is that it
imposes less restraint on the movement of water supplies to higher economic uses. Cost protection
for objectors would further restrain these changes of use.

Water transfers affect the social structure and interactions in the community. The overall quality
and character of life can be undermined in areas where historical irrigation is suddenly terminated
(Shupe 1989, 429); the people of the area lose their psychological and cultural "roots" (Weber
1990, 15); even in highly homogeneous communities, proposed water transfers create conflicting
interpretations among residents regarding the proper relationship between the physical and social
environments and the proper relationships among themselves (Greider and Little 1988,47).

If community impacts are to be mitigated there is little consensus as to what would constitute fair
and adequate mitigation, and who should judge the adequacy of mitigation. Possibilities include
the courts, local government, or state government. Water courts have a limited role in third party
impact mitigation (Pratt 1988). Some mitigation proposals raise issues of who pays or who receives
payment. Such proposals may include payments in lieu of taxes; compensation to individuals,
businesses or local governments; economic development efforts; "banking" of compensation
measures; and requirements for severance-type payments.

2-9