PROJ02008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ensure the highest economic value to his land when it is thus converted, the value of which is greatly diminished without this water. Furthermore, a stockholder's decision to sell stock to the canal company is more in keeping with the traditional norm of benefiting the community he has lived in. Under present circumstances, and without pressurized secondary water for outdoor use provided by local canal companies, the City of Lamar is using much needed revenue to purchase canal company stock to replenish well depletions. No benefits are being provided to local canal companies, other than the assessments paid on city-acquired stock. Canal systems cannot be improved, since the annual stock assessment is largely predicated on what farmers can afford, rather than what the canal system really needs in the way of upgrades. Current farm income probably will not allow significant increases in annual canal company stock assessments, except in those areas of the nation where vegetable produce and other specialty crops are grown. This fact results in deteriorating water service for many irrigated farms in the West, an inability to qualify for federal and state programs for farm improvements, and a loss in the long-term beneficial use of the canal company's water decree. All of these factors make water in agriculture, particularly around Lamar, an increasingly easy target for outside interests wishing to remove it from the Lower Arkansas River basin. Rural communities seemingly must find a way of equitably sharing the burden of keeping water in the area. The provision of pressurized secondary water for residential outdoor use by canal companies, an.d the use of canal company water stock to provide this water, is a way of ensuring that canal companies can maintain their historic role as active participants in local water management. This links the growers and agricultural production to the future of the city as well. Rural communities largely depend on viable agricultural production for their economic base, even if farming is not the primary employment sector. As with mining and manufacturing, agriculture is a primary producer of real gross income to the community. This gross income circulates through all of the government, educational and service employment sectors. Unlike more urbanized areas where municipalities can freely substitute industry for agriculture, rural communities often must consider planning options that help maintain and stimulate improvements in agricultural production. What would a canal company with a viable revenue stream from secondary water service bring to the surrounding area? The obvious answer is that it would probably increase efficiency and result in improved agricultural production, if efforts were made to pressurize agricultural water deliveries with a dedicated portion of the revenue derived from the secondary system. New crops could be tried under improved methods of irrigation. Capital improvements on farms and a more reliable water supply from the canal company could attract more young farmers to the area. Without upgrading existing canal systems, agriculture in the High Plains will likely reach a point of diminishing returns that is increasingly unattractive to future farmers. A direct taxpayer subsidy to agriculture is not a popular idea. However, by allowing the canal company to operate a secondary water system, if the canal company is indeed willing to do so, a reasonable income transfer from Lamar residents to farms can be Aqua Engineering, Inc. and Colorado State University May 19, 2004 Secondary Supply Feasibility Study -10-