WSP09303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,"'~;;' ~~,~,,-~;j " ,1MAS-LA PLATA PROJECT AGRICULTURE 1. CAN FARMERS UNDER THE PROJECT AFFORD TO INVEST IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND STILL PAY THE CHARGE FOR PROJECT WATER? Yes, the Bureau of Recla- mation, 1n establishing the charge for proJect 1rrigation water took into account the cost of an on farm sprinkler system along with other farm expenses, and allowances for interest on the farmer's equity in his investment, wages for his labor and return for his management ability. It is true that converting from dry farming or partial irrigation, as it is practiced today, to more sophisticated farming with sprinklers will involve both economic and social transitions. It maybe that some of todays farmers, particularly the older ones, may elect to sell their land instead of making the transition themselves. WHAT HAS BEEN THE EFFECT OF ~HE NAVAJO INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT ON FARM PRICES IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN. It has had the effect of creating temp- orary surpluses of some farm commodities and thus, depressing prices of those commodities. However, this situation should only be temporary. with the com- pletion of that project and the Dolores and Animas-La Plata Projects there will be approximately 240,000 acres of additional fully irrigated farm land in the basin. It will be possible to develop new markets such as local meat packing operations, dairying, etc. all of which will tend to increase local farm prices. 2. 3. WILL RECLAMATION AeREAGE ~IMITATIONS BE ENFORCED ON THIS PROJECT? IF SO, WHAT WILL BE THE CRITERIA. The l60-acre limitation law and policies are currently 1n a state of flux, as a result of the Secretary of Interior sudden- ly attempting to enforce the original 1902 law after many years of non-en- forcement. There are a number of new laws currently before Congress that are designed to update the original law. In the draft Definite Plan Report provision has currently been made for a single ownership to use project water in 160 acres of Class 1 land, 175 acres of Class 2 land or 198 acres of Class 3 land. A weighted average allowable acreage would be determined for each farm. A farm in joint ownership would be allowed water for double the acreage permitted for single ownership. 4. WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE THAT IRRIGATION WATER WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSiS? . There is no guarantee. However, water on Reclarnat10n proJects 19 al ocated and not sold to the users. This removes the profit motive of disposing of irrigation water that occurs on private irrigation projects. Secondly, the repayment contract will contain rather strict regulations relating to the change in water use. For instance, if a water user wishes to change from irrigation to municipal or industrial use, he must get the permission of the board of directors of the water conservancy district and from the Secretary of Interior. Furthermore, if the approval is granted, this triggers the renegotiation of the entire repayment contract and a new analysis of irrigation repayment charges. Any conservancy board would think a long time before opening that can of worms. Still further, before irrigation water can be diverted to energy uses, an agreement would go into effect which had been negotiated between the State of Colorado and the Department of Interior. Under the provisions of this agree- ment, the governor of Colorado would have to approve such a change only in case of "overriding national interest" would the governor's wishes be ignored. 5. WILL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL CROPS GROWN ON THE PROJECT? There would be no federal control over crops grown on the project. The authorizing legislation for the Animas-La Plata Project restricted the use of irrigation water to those crops which were not presently in a surplus condit.ion as is outlined in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. However, this provision expired in 1978. 6. W IN Without pete in