Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CDIVI <br /> <br />SWSI Phase 2 Technical Roundtable <br />Agricultural Transfer Alternatives to Permanent Dry-up <br /> <br />. How does a rotating fallowing program that results in 10,000 acres fallowed each <br />year differ in the annual impacts to the local economy as compared to a permanent <br />dry-up of 10,000 acres that includes voluntary payments in lieu of taxes? <br /> <br />. Do these program(s) result in the partial reduction in jobs associated with farm <br />labor and equipment maintenance? <br /> <br />. Will the local governments within a program area find an acceptable program that <br />permanently ties up the future development potential of lands within their <br />jurisdiction? For example, lands within a rotating fallowing program are restricted <br />to perpetual irrigation use or open space to ensure a future water supply to an M&I <br />user and the continuing local socio-economic benefits of continued agricultural use. <br />In the future there may be opportunities to develop the agricultural lands within <br />the interruptible supply or fallowing program for M&I uses, which present <br />significant local socio-economic opportunities. However, the continued use of the <br />land for interruptible uses is needed to ensure a firm and reliable supply for the <br />original program participants. <br /> <br />Financial <br /> <br />. What are the costs to organize and administer a program and who are the parties <br />that could contribute to the costs? <br /> <br />. Are annual payments made to only the agricultural users fallowing for that year or <br />to all program participants? <br /> <br />. Are there regional or statewide benefits to an interruptible or rotating fallowing <br />program, such as preservation of open space or providing for environmental flows? <br />Should a portion of the program costs be borne by the public? <br /> <br />. What portion of the total land and water rights value will need to be paid to an <br />agricultural user as compensation for permanent enrollment in a program? <br /> <br />. Can conservation easements be used to reduce the program costs? <br /> <br />. Are there additional incentives needed for agricultural users to participate in these <br />programs when their rights can be sold for large sums to M&I users? <br /> <br />2. Background <br /> <br />Agricultural uses currently account for more than 85 percent of the water diverted <br />and consumed in Colorado. Agricultural users hold much of the senior water rights in <br />most basins. Water rights in Colorado are a property right and, in most instances, can <br />be transferred and severed from the land. Agricultural water rights have historically <br />been acquired by many M&I water providers and self-supplied industrial water users <br />and transferred to M&I use. In typical agricultural transfers, farm land is usually <br />"dried up" or no longer irrigated and the water historically used for irrigation of this <br />land is used for meeting M&I needs. Only the CD portion of the water can be <br />transferred, not the total diversions. Transferred agricultural rights can also be used <br />for other purposes such as dedication to the CWCB for instream flow purposes. In <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />4 <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 />