Laserfiche WebLink
<br />02.82 <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only on lands of marginal income value to the farmer <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only where lands and crop types will recover quickly from <br />withdrawal of supply <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only to lands where return flow characteristics would be non- <br />deleterious <br /> <br />. interruptible supply of surface water, but not groundwater <br /> <br />. interruptible of supply of groundwater, but not surface water <br /> <br />Other factors would include the lateral seepage, lateral maintenance costs and operational effects of <br />interruption of supply. Another alternative would b2artial interruption, with simply a change in crop <br />type and minimal irrigation necessary to maintain e land dunng me "interruption period". <br /> <br />Associated with interruptible supply issues are the traditional issues of weeds, dust, and soil profile <br />and soil salinity changes. These issues can add transaction type costs to the interruptible supply <br />program. Information on effects and successes of temporary non-cultivation is available from the <br />experience of local farmers from the CRP and other fallowing and conservation programs. <br /> <br />Interruptible supply can also significantly impact the operation and expenses of the ditch company, <br />and require legal changes in the organization of the rules and bylaws of the company. 'pr. Clark hilS ~ <br />conducted research on the concept of temporary water transfers. Application of this concept, l, <br />sometimes called interruptible supply or drought insurance, can be used to stabilize water supply ;: <br />alIocation_ Methodologies for estimating transfer costs, option costs, and ownership costs of water '-'l. <br />rights were developed in the research and will be applied in this study. <br /> <br />Alternative 8: Agricultural Production Interference Charge <br /> <br />,./\;~, <br />~ .",""<~;;r <br /> <br />An agricultural production interference charge IS an alternative which is similar in part to water <br />banking and to an interruptible supply, but with Qisrinct differences. Typically, it would involve a <br />!)!ulti-year contract between the entity which pays the interference charge (often a municipaliry which <br />seeks a more secure water supply during dry years) and the recipient who owns a reasonably senior <br />water right (or possibly a group of water rights owners such as a ditch company or conceivably an <br />entire irrigation district). In effect, it is a geriodic rental and transfer of water rather than a <br />permanent transfer of a water right. 5- <br /> <br />The multi-year contract normally would involve payment of an annual standby fee for the right to ~\, ~l.3o I <br />interrupt and divert the water right of the recipient, plus a larger ~nu~ tee during ye3!l;>when the " 1 <br />interference actually occurs. During dry years when the option to take the water right is exercised, <br />the water right owner will cease agricultural production (or possibly use another water supply <br />available, such as groundwater, to grow an alternative crop). Normally, the agricultural land will lie <br />fallow until a later year when the entiry no longer exercises the option right, or will revert to a <br />dryland crop if natural rainfall permits this. <br /> <br />The entiry which pays the interference charge is actually purchasing a form of insurance, assuring that <br />an adequate water supply will be available even in drought years. This will provide a safe yield of <br /> <br />21 <br />