Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative Agricultural Transfers Technical Roundtable Meeting #1 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />. An additional question to add is whether it makes sense to dry up poorer quality lands - is <br />this a better public policy? <br />. How fallowing can be utilized depends on how the gap is defined - drought protection, firm <br />yield, etc. Fallowing could also be used to meet reliability. <br />. What are the controlling parameters - permanency expected from end user (leaser) varies <br />between dry year leasing and filling a permanent gap. The question regarding whether the <br />fallowing would be permanent needs to be asked up front. <br />. Lands under development would not preclude a rotating fallowing program. <br />. What is permanency expectation on side of farmer - may not know from year to year what <br />level of revenue they will get. <br />. There is a "control issue" between M&I and Agricultural users as M&I wants certainty <br />regarding water supply and typically want to own the water and least it back to the farmer. <br />. For M&I providers, reliability is the number 1 issue as it's their duty to customers that when <br />taps are turned water will be there. A permanency is needed for M&I supply. <br />. Water from fallowing could be used during dry year, recovery from a dry year and for a <br />compact call. <br />. Fallowing could be used to address temporary needs even though it's not meeting the entire <br />20% gap. <br />. Farmers are not making good living under current system because families are selling off <br />farms with aging farmers. This statement was countered as being a generalization as this is <br />no the case for the lower South Platte. <br />. Direct communication between those who have the water and those who need the water is <br />required because those individuals will be the ultimate decision makers. <br />. There is not a one size fits all solution and there are a lot of unique approaches that could <br />vary across the state. <br />. This group should address the impediments under state law for implementation of a rotating <br />fallowing program. <br /> <br />After comments on the white paper were discussed the TRT had an opportunity to generate <br />questions for the TRT to address. The group then prioritized on these questions (entire list of <br />questions and results of voting are attached to this meeting summary) by voting on those they <br />thought were and initial priority. These questions address the mission statement and provide <br />examination of the opportunities and consequences of taking various actions. The prioritized <br />questions the following questions are summarized below and will be addressed by this TRT <br />during the remaining TRT meetings: <br /> <br />Legal/ Water Rights / Institutional/ Political <br />1. Are legislative/regulatory changes needed to implement the proposed program(s)? <br />What is/ are the legal impediments in statute that require change in law for fallowing? <br />Identify current impediments that exist in legal and regulatory system to Alternative Ag <br />transfers? <br />2. What is the water court process related to program(s) approach and implementation? <br />Do the same rules apply if the M&I user is from out of the state? (e.g., can a west slope <br />irrigator fallow land to lease water to Las Vegas or L.A. Metropolitan District?) <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />S:\SWSI 2\Meetings\Technical Roundtable\TRT Meeting - Specific\Alternative Ag Transfers\summary\Alt Ag Tran TRT #1 Summary final.doc <br />