Section3_AgricultureWithTables

• Title: SWSI Phase 2 Report - Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer
• Date: 11/7/2007
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI II - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 3
Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer
user must then find other sources of water to
meet permanent needs.
~ Certain interests expressed concern that
rotational fallowing is likely more expensive to an
end user than a permanent conventional
agricultural transfer, but there are no Colorado
examples at this point. Incentives would likely
need to be significant to entice an agricultural
user to forego the right to interfere with
performance of the contract during the term of
the agreement, though these choices are very
similar to those commonly made in the sale of
conservation easements or other dedications.
Annual payments would be payable to those
agricultural users fallowing each year, and
possibly a minimal payment to those producers
not fallowing. Annual costs, as opposed to a
lump-sum payment for purchase of water rights,
could be much lower at the front-end but the sum
of all payments could be much larger over the
long term. The spreading of the costs may be
important in regard to use of general obligation
bonding finance capacity, revenue bonding, or
water rates charged to users. Issues of matching
the costs and benefits are important in such
choices. In addition, the transaction costs to
assemble and administer a fallowing program may
be significant.
~ Some perennial agricultural crops, such as
orchards and vineyards, may not be appropriate
for a rotating fallowing program. The impacts to
perennial forages as a result of random fallowing
are uncertain. On the other hand, transferors may
arrange to allocate some of their water to make
such crops possible, using internal arrangements
and the new financing to pursue activities and
horticulture that are currently infeasible.
significant infrastructure investments in
pipelines, pump stations, and advanced treatment
facilities.
~ A change of use from agricultural to M~eI or other
uses would likely be required. Determination of
the transferable amount can be complicated and
other vested water right owners must be
protected. Legal and engineering costs will be
incurred as with any other long-term change.
Administration by the State Engineer's Office
(SEO) must be clear and achievable and
adequately funded.
~ As with ISAs, soil, weed, labor, and equipment
management issues must be considered on the
fallowed lands. A farm operation involves not
only the planting, irrigating, and harvesting of
crops, but the hiring of labor and maintenance of
equipment In addition, the management of soil
erosion and weed control will be issues on
irrigated fields that are temporarily removed from
agronomic production. Some of these challenges
may be minimized by dryland cropping on the
fallowed lands so long as adequate safeguards to
prevent expanded use bysub-irrigation.
~ In some instances the establishment of a cover
crop may require early-season irrigation. Such an
agricultural demand would reduce the amount of
water available to the buyer and complicate
administration.
~ Agricultural supplies for a rotating fallowing
program would have to be in an appropriate
location and of sufficient quantity to meet the
needs associated with the alternative demands. If
used for M~eI purposes, the water from the
fallowed lands must be transferred to the M~eI
water supply intakes or delivered to the water
treatment facilities and may likely require
advanced treatment Tbis could require
It should be noted that many of the issues discussed
above relating to water court and infrastructure
needs would be similar to those involving the
permanent dry-up of irrigated lands.
FINAL DRAFT 3-15