Laserfiche WebLink
<br />14. Cost of protecting water rights and protesting water transfers is relatively high for <br />rural communities and farmers. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />007fl <br /> <br />11. Rural c!>mmunities and farmers may b~ ambivalent or undecided on the position to <br />take on a possible water transfer. This may be a result of a desire to retain the <br />option for sale of their water as security for the future. <br /> <br />12. If a transfer occurs, farmers may no~ want to be "left behind", fearing greater <br />operating problems, higher expenses, i and the loss of neighbors and traditional <br />community lifestyle. ! <br /> <br />13. There are accepted legal processes fo* the transfer of water and resolution of at <br />least some of the issues arising from ai proposed transfer. <br /> <br />Summarv <br />! <br />The foregoing information must be summarized to pr~sent a coherent understanding of the study <br />scope and the essential issues to be addressed. The ire suIting understanding will determine the <br />emphasis of the study activities and shape the content of succeeding chapters of this report. <br /> <br />There are two purposes to the study. The first is to unc;1erstand and characterize the Ft. Lyon Canal <br />Company system, together with such surrounding area as may be affected by transfer of water out <br />of the system. This is accomplished by an identificrtion of issues, description and analysis of <br />historical water transfers in the region, and developipg knowledge of the forces underlying the <br />motivation to buy and sell water. The physical and ~ocial systems are described in detail. The <br />second purpose, following from the first, is to identify and analyze alternatives to a large-scale <br />transfer. This is accomplished by seeking strategi~s, management tools and applications of <br />resources which provide overall net benefit to the Ft; Lyon system and the region. Alternatives <br />which present the possibility of hydrologic, economic, legal, social, and environmental feasibility, <br />as compared to a large-scale out of basin transfer, shol-lId receive further attention. Those that do <br />not should be set aside. <br /> <br />Basin characteristics suggest that water availability is q~ite variable, distribution is highly developed <br />and that water supply systems are complex and interdependent. Water quality is marginal, mainly <br />due to naturally occurring high salinity, and is aggra~ated by intense use and reuse. <br /> <br />2-14 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Water transfers in Colorado are allowed, subject to the "no injury" rule, but can be controversial <br />and expensive. The effects of a water transfer on third parties and the environment are not <br />consistently addressed by Colorado law at present. T~irteen historical water transfers in the lower <br />. Arkansas Valley are identified and assessed. They ~ave resulted in a net loss of 18 percent of <br />irrigated land and associated production. Net imp~cts on the valley from these transfers are <br />difficult to identify because most of the water has beet!! used within the basin and imports of water <br />by transmountain projects have increased over time. I <br /> <br />From the discussion of issues identified, the following, are major issues to serve as focal points for <br />the Ft. Lyon study: <br />