My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SWSI AlternativeAgriculturalTransfersTRTDraftWhitePaper
CWCB
>
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
SWSI AlternativeAgriculturalTransfersTRTDraftWhitePaper
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:30:00 AM
Creation date
12/21/2007 10:56:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
Technical Roundtable
Agricultural Transfer
Title
SWSI - Alternative Agricultural Transfers White Paper
SWSI II - Doc Type
White Papers
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />CDIVI <br /> <br />SWSI Phase 2 Technical Roundtable <br />Agricultural Transfer Alternatives to Permanent Dry-up <br /> <br />. What are the soil and weed management issues under each proposed program and <br />what is the cost to adequately manage these issues? <br /> <br />. What is the physical availability of yield in dry years and is additional storage <br />required to provide for non-irrigation season return flows and yields? <br /> <br />. What portion of irrigated lands within a single ditch system can be fallowed? Is <br />there a general percentage of a ditch system that can be assumed as a practical <br />maximum limit or is it ditch specific? How will changes in ditch issues impact the <br />system? <br /> <br />. Is it more advantageous to rotate fallowing within a single ditch system or across <br />multiple ditch systems? <br /> <br />. Is there potential for seasonal fallowing? <br /> <br />LegalfW ater Rights <br /> <br />. Is legislation needed to implement the proposed program(s) or can it be <br />implemented within the existing legal framework? <br /> <br />. How are concerns over the potential for increases in CD and/ or reduction in <br />timing, location, and amount of return flows addressed with other water rights <br />holders within the basin? <br /> <br />. What is the water court process related to program(s) approval and <br />implementation? <br /> <br />. How do you ensure that lands within a ditch system that are required to be <br />fallowed in anyone year do not irrigate during that year? <br /> <br />Institutional and Political <br /> <br />. What are the institutional mechanisms and arrangements required for <br />implementation and administration of the proposed program(s)? <br /> <br />. Should the institution in charge of the program(s) be a local, regional, or state <br />public agency or should the program(s) be administered by the agricultural water <br />rights owners or ditch and reservoir companies? <br /> <br />. Can the program(s) be successfully implemented if the agricultural user is not <br />required to bind the land and water to permanent irrigation on the lands enrolled <br />in the program(s)? <br /> <br />. Would municipalities need to own the water right under a fallowing program in <br />order to ensure a permanent supply? <br /> <br />. What program conditions are needed to ensure that private property rights are not <br />impaired? <br /> <br />. Are these program(s) a potential option to provide for meeting additional <br />environmental flows? <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />3 <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.