My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AgricultureTRT3Pres
CWCB
>
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
AgricultureTRT3Pres
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:28:53 AM
Creation date
12/21/2007 11:34:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
Technical Roundtable
Agricultural Transfer
Title
SWSI - Agricultural Transfer Alternatives to Permanent Dry-up Technical Roundtable (Meeting #3)
Date
4/18/2006
Author
CWCB
SWSI II - Doc Type
Presentations
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />Question 1 b. Are annual payments made to only <br />the agricultural users fallowing for that year or to all <br />program participants? <br /> <br />NT pays annually to farmers who are fallowing on a per acre basis, <br />based on CU per acre saved. Individual farmer contracts allow for <br />different payments to SID farmers. Program participants benefit <br />through generous administrative payments to SID reducing operation <br />and maintenance assessments to all SID shareholders. <br /> <br />~ <br />1. MWD - PVID: All fallowing participants in for long term; paid same per <br />acre-foot each year <br />2. SDCWA - 110: Participants vary by year; participants' payment same per <br />acre-foot each year <br />3. Aurora - Rocky Ford: Annual payment to fallowing program participants <br />per share <br />4. MWD - Sacramento Valley: Only program participants compensated <br /> <br />Sources: MWD - PVID Rotational Fallowing Program, SDCWA -110 Program, <br />Aurora - Rocky Ford Program <br /> <br />Question 1 C. Are there regional or statewide benefits <br />to an interruptible or rotating fallowing program, such as <br />preservation of open space or providing for environmental <br />flows? Should a portion of the program costs be borne by <br />the public or third parties? <br /> <br />There are indeed statewide benefits, because the direct parties in <br />Strawman took pains to adhere to the goal of maintaining agriculture <br />while meeting the "Gap". If this goal is a statewide value, financial <br />help with the feasibility study on the third party mitigation may be <br />warranted. <br /> <br />~ <br />1. MWD - Sacramento Valley: Historic return flows were preserved. No <br />downstream environments or wildlife areas were affected. <br />2. SDCWA - 110: Historic return flows preserved. No impacts to the Salton <br />Sea as a result of fallowing <br />3. MWD - PVID, SDCWA -110, Aurora-Rocky Ford: Financial support to <br />farmers who want to remain in farming <br /> <br />Sources: MWD - Sacramento Valley Program <br /> <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.