Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative Agricultural Transfers Technical Roundtable Meeting #1 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />31 - Financial Questions <br />1. What are the costs to organize and administer a program and who are the parties that <br />r-:\ could contribute to the costs? <br />~ - How can public and third-party beneficiaries by contributors to provision of those <br />benefits (e.g., "leaks," and "inefficiencies" that provide amenity, tax value, and <br />environmental benefits? <br />Are annual payments made to only the agricultural users fallowing for that year or to <br />all program participants? <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 or third parties? <br /> <br />Blue <br />1 <br /> <br />Red <br />3 <br /> <br />Yellow <br />3 <br /> <br />Green <br />2 <br /> <br />Orange <br /> <br />2. What portion of the total land and water rights value will need to be paid to an <br />f:\ agricultural user as compensation for enrollment in a program? <br />o - 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 />Within a fallowing program, will the permanency for farmer and water provider be <br />contractual? Providing certainty for the farmer that land will stay in production and a <br />water supply for water provider understanding that water may not be available to <br />meet all future growth? <br /> <br />Blue <br /> <br />Red <br />2 <br /> <br />Yellow <br />1 <br /> <br />Green <br />7 <br /> <br />Orange <br />1 <br /> <br />3. Can conservation easements be used to reduce the program costs? (Should be amended to <br />include "financial and tax and other incentives," to reduce program costs. <br /> <br />Blue <br />1 <br /> <br />Red <br /> <br />Yellow <br /> <br />Green <br />1 <br /> <br />Orange <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />How do the annual local economic impacts of a rotating fallowing program compare with <br />a permanent dry-up that includes voluntary payment in lieu of taxes? (Loss of local tax <br />revenues for schools, government, etc.) <br /> <br />G) <br /> <br />Blue <br /> <br />Red <br />5 <br /> <br />Yellow <br />2 <br /> <br />Green <br />10 <br /> <br />Orange <br /> <br />5. Would municipal utility rate payers be willing to pay extra for water derived from non- <br />permanent ag transfers? (Analogy to Xcel customers being asked to pay extra for wind <br />power electricity). <br /> <br />Blue <br /> <br />Red <br /> <br />Yellow <br /> <br />Green <br /> <br />Orange <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />S:\SWSI 2\Meetings\Technical Roundtable\TRT Meeting - Specific\Alternative Ag Transfers\summary\Alt Ag Tran TRT #1 Summary final.doc <br />