Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CDIVI <br /> <br />SWSI Phase 2 Technical Roundtable <br />Agricultural Transfer Alternatives to Permanent Dry-up <br /> <br />Interruptible agricultural transfers offer several benefits: <br /> <br />. A permanent transfer of agricultural water rights may not be needed, avoiding <br />some of the negative impacts of a permanent dry up of agricultural lands. <br /> <br />. Interruptible agreements are useful during below average runoff conditions, when <br />the available supplies to meet M&I, environmental, or recreational needs are <br />reduced. The need to construct significant volumes of new storage to carryover <br />water from average to above average runoff years for use in below average years <br />can be minimized. <br /> <br />. Since agricultural water rights are often more senior, the temporary transfer of this <br />water to other uses can result in meeting an M&I, environmental, or recreational <br />need during critical dry periods without the expense and issues of a permanent <br />agricultural transfer or the development of storage or an expensive new water <br />supply project. <br /> <br />. A better or more stable income to agricultural users can be assured, since during a <br />drought supplies may not be adequate to produce a crop, even if the agricultural <br />water right were used for irrigation and the net income from an interruptible <br />arrangement can exceed the revenue that would be realized from farming that year. <br /> <br />There are numerous potential issues and conflicts with interruptible transfers that <br />may limit the usefulness of this option as a tool for meeting future water needs: <br /> <br />. One premise of an interruptible supply arrangement is that the agricultural water <br />right will remain in irrigation in perpetuity. An interruptible arrangement may be <br />of very limited benefit to meet long-range water supply needs unless the <br />interruptible supply arrangement is permanent and the farmer or rancher is bound <br />to keep the water in agricultural use. <br /> <br />. Interruptible agreements must be evaluated on a case by case basis, as not all <br />agricultural rights can be transferred to M&I water use. For example, interruptible <br />transfers are very limited in the Denver Metro and South Metro subbasins of the <br />South Platte, where there is very little agricultural water use that can be interrupted <br />on an annual basis and transferred to existing M&I intakes. Available interruptible <br />transfers for these areas would require significant infrastructure investments in <br />pipelines, pump stations, and advanced treatment facilities in order to convey <br />agricultural water from locations downstream of metro Denver. <br /> <br />. The agricultural rights involved in the interruptible transfer must have dry year <br />yields. Many agricultural water users also experience significant shortages during <br />below average runoff conditions and these supplies may provide minimal yield in <br />a dry year. <br /> <br />. The determination of the transferable amount can be complicated; as in a water <br />transfer the rights of other water users must be protected. There must be a <br />mechanism to ensure that the transfer does not result in an increase of historical CD <br />and return flows are maintained during the temporary interruption. CRS 37-92-309 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />S:\MEETINGS\TECHNICAL ROUNDTABLE\TRT MEETING - SPECIFIC\AL TERNATIVE AG TRANSFERS\SWSI TRT ALTERNATIVES TO PERMANENT DRY-UP BRIEFING 9-6-05_CJEDOC <br />