Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative Agricultural Transfers Technical Roundtable Meeting #1 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />3. Should the programs be administered by the end user, governmental agency, or by the <br />agricultural water rights owners or ditch and reservoir companies? <br />4. Can the program(s) be successful if the agricultural user is not required to bind the land and <br />water to irrigation? <br />What is the required permanency or certainty that a water supplier must require on an <br />agreement for land fallowing? <br />5. What program conditions are needed to ensure that private property rights are not <br />impaired? <br />How can we help without taking away from the value to the property and water right <br />owner allowing the free market to operate? <br />6. 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 water <br />supply for water provider understanding that water may not be available to meet all future <br />growth? <br /> <br />Financial <br />1. What are the costs to organize and administer a program and who are the parties that could <br />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 all <br />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 />2. What portion of the total land and water rights value will need to be paid to an agricultural <br />user as compensation for enrollment in a program? <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 />3. How do the annual local economic impacts of a rotating fallowing program compare with a <br />permanent dry-up that includes voluntary payment in lieu of taxes? (Loss of local tax <br />revenues for schools, government, etc.) <br /> <br />Technical <br />1. Are there suitable irrigated lands (yield and water quality)? If not, how do the infrastructure <br />costs of a permanent dry-up transfer? <br />How does geography (e.g., stateline vs. upstream water right) affect alternatives? <br />2. Water Quality Impacts - What effects will reduced river flows have on water quality issues <br />in the future - TMDLs, salinity, etc.? <br />EPA TMDL standards for streams (e.g., temperature that requires stream flows) <br /> <br />The TRT then assigned these questions to groups. The groups by question are listed attached. <br />The SWSI Team will work with the chairs of each of the questions to set-up conference calls and <br />interim deliverables prior to the next TRT meeting. <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />S:\SWSI 2\Meetings\Technical Roundtable\TRT Meeting - Specific\Alternative Ag Transfers\summary\Alt Ag Tran TRT #1 Summary final.doc <br />