Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0283 <br /> <br />water much more cheaply than developing a supply by traditional means, such as purchasing remote <br />water rights and cc n ;tncring diversion and storage facilities. <br /> <br />The water right owner who contracts to have that right interrupted will benefit from receiving the <br />annual standby fee, and will negotiate an interference charge sufficiently large to compensate for the <br />annual loss of agricultural production when the option to take the water is exercised. <br /> <br />1':!0 compensatory payment, however, is made to third vanies who suffer economic loss from the loss <br />of agricultural production, e.g. farm laborers, and agribusinesses which normally sell supplies to the <br />fanner or process or transporr the farmer's crops. <br /> <br />Also, the use of interference contracts may add transaction costs and may impact the operation and <br />expenses of the ditch company in the sarne manner as discussed previously in the section dealing with <br />Alternative 7: Interruptible Supply. <br /> <br />Alternative 9: Water Supply Recycling <br /> <br />Municipal use of water supplies with subsequent use by agricultural users is a common occurrence <br />within Colorado. GEC has been successful in work on behalf of Colorado Springs in the decreeing of <br />exchanges to utilize and develop their municipal water supply in this manner. <br /> <br />Additionally, water exchanges are very cornmon in the Denver Metropolitan area. These exchanges <br />include the Burlington Ditch ,...ith return flows from Denver Metro Wastewater on behalf of both <br />Thornton and the Denver Water Deparonent and on the Farmers Highline Canal through returns from <br />the City of Westminster's Big Dry Wastewater Treatment Facility. <br /> <br />Water supply recycling and exchange plans in the Arkansas River Basin are presently occurring now <br />with the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Pueblo. Each city expects the water supply exchange <br />plans to grow in furure years. Other water supply exchange plans could be developed on a smaller <br />sc e cities of Rocky Ford La Junta, Lamar and other communities within the lower Arkansas <br />Valley. This jomt use 0 water supplies will improve the quantity of the supplies available to <br />agricultural and municipal users. A limiting factor of th~eXChan es will be water quality impacts of <br />water recycling, proper rreatment facilities and a clear erstandin f water quality standare> <br />required to optimize these programs. <br /> <br />.iJ(-'l1 <br /> <br />Alternative 10: Combination of Alternatives <br /> <br />Upon completion of our study of the nine alternatives set fOM previously we will look at other <br />opponunities that may be available including combinations of the above alternatives. As suggested <br />in the request for proposals, alternatives that will not be considered in this study include: <br /> <br />. area of origin protection legislation whereby new statutes control and regulate the <br />transfer of water and! or water rights <br /> <br />. Task Force II concept whereby a quasi-governmental entity participates in the water <br />market and administers alternative water transfer methods. <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />sd- <br />fOc~ <br /> <br />~pr <br />