WSP09491 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to' 9 Costs of ditch or lateral operation may rise or fall; costs of other water delivery may change (such as well pumping costs); costs of farming (e.g. herbicide application) may increase where adjacent land is revegetated or abandoned. 2. Ft. Lyon Canal Company operations and finances Ditch companies are generally mutual enterprises to divert and distribute water at a shared cost. Transfers will create' change andean also create imbalances and inequities; maintenance requirements for laterals and the main canal may change; costs of operations and administration may change; control of the corporation (and its operating agents such as ditch superintendents and ditch riders) and control of lateral operating groups qlay change, delivery of water may require changes in structures such as headgates, wasteways, tjumes, checks, and lateral headgates, with new or increased expenses; and operating contracts an" agreements may be altered due to changes in flow regimen. Sluicing operations when sediments are washed from the ditch may be inipaired, resulting in reduction in capacity. ' New management responsibilities may be introduced: use and management of revegetated lands needs to be addressed; fencing and stock water will be needed where livestock grazing is planned. Non-selling shareholders often desire to participate ill water transfer court proceedings, or in negotiations with purchasers to assure protection. . Legal proceedings involve the expenses of hiring and managing experts, including hydrologists, agronomi}ts, and attorneys. Proposed water transfers out of the Ft. Lyon system have produced conflict am0ng the shareholders over these and other matters. 3. Environmental; and ecosystems Shareholders have concerns about the welfare of adjacent lands and the associated environmental attributes. These concerns are essentially the same liS those expressed on page 2-10, Regional Environmental. ' , , B. Relrional Iss?es Issues relevant to citizens of the five-county study I area, including water users not directly associated with the company, are called third-partv issues because these issues are not always directly addressed in the transfer transaction. While water rights holders have standing with the water court, some other third parties may not. Other ~ater users bear the benefits or detriments of an increased or decreased water supply resulting fr~m changed river regimen after a transfer. Water quantity and quality may affect farm yields and Income, with widespread implications. The concept of mitigation, I.e. the off-setting or compensatl<ln, of the adverse impacts of water transfers raises additional issues such as who pays for mitigating these effects, who receives relief and who decides such questions. i 1. Water supply; quantity, quality and distribu~on Water transfers always affect the supply to other water!users on the stream. The removal of water , from historically irrigated lands eventually affects returp flows to the stream, ,and the water supply of downstream users. Because a lesser supply to downstream users may increase their need for , 2-7