Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />Soil, weed, labor, and equipment management <br />issues must be considered during the time when <br />irrigation is not occurring on the lands forgoing <br />irrigation. Also, dry-up must be enforced. <br />There are significant challenges in starting a <br />successful market. A banking entity needs to be <br />responsible for developing the underlying rules, <br />advertising to potential depositors and <br />withdrawers, and maintaining the daily <br />accounting of the bank. In the Arkansas pilot <br />project, potential users have not utilized the <br />water bank, since an effective market already <br />existed. <br />~ Revenue streams from water banks to agricultural <br />users are irregular, and thus may inhibit a <br />producer's willingness or ability to invest in <br />technology that may improve farm gate <br />profitability with reduced water supplies. <br />~ Developing a water bank in a location that does <br />not either have the necessary infrastructure to <br />deliver water to new demands or where such <br />infrastructure cannot be cost-effectively installed <br />is likely futile. <br />3.5.4 Reduced Agricultural <br />Consumptive Use through <br />Efficiency or Cropping While <br />Maintaining Historic Return Flows <br />Reducing Consumptive Use through <br />Efficiency <br />It is possible that changes in cropping types, <br />irrigation application methods, and/or timing of <br />irrigation can result in a reduction of CU as <br />compared to historical CU on the same agricultural <br />parcel. Limited irrigation refers to idealizing the <br />crop yield from a limited (rather than full <br />evapotranspiration [ET]) amount of irrigation, while <br />deficit irrigation more narrowly refers to timing <br />irrigation so as to reduce plant growth during <br />vegetative stages but not limiting growth in <br />reproductive stages. A reduction in per acre CU <br />from either method potentially could be transferred <br />to an alternative "off-farm" use (i.e., M~eI, <br />environmental, recreational). <br />Reducing Consumptive Use through <br />Cropping <br />This approach involves changing the historical crop <br />type (perpetually or for a limited term) from crops <br />having relatively high annual CU to crops having <br />lower CU requirements. The differential between <br />high CU and low CU crops could be as high as <br />12 inches of crop CU (per acre). A hybrid system of <br />low CU crops coupled with deficit irrigation <br />(intentional under-irrigation) methods could further <br />leverage the possibilities. Transfers fromtbis <br />alternative would likely provide a fixed per annum <br />water yield that could provide a supply necessary to <br />increase an M~eI user's firm annual yield. <br />The benefits of alternatives comprising cropping <br />and/or irrigation practices are similar to those <br />outlined within the Rotational Fallowing <br />Arrangement section (above). One additional <br />benefit, however, is that presumably all the land <br />remains in irrigable (limited) production throughout <br />the term of the program. <br />The potential issues and conflicts associated with <br />the ability to reduce agricultural CU via modified <br />cropping patterns and irrigation schemes include: <br />~ A water court transfer would likely be required. <br />Determination of the transferable amount would <br />be complicated and other water users must be <br />protected To date limited research bas been <br />conducted in Colorado to assess crop ET under <br />deficit irrigation schedules. Limited water use <br />~. ,_ <br />3-18 FINAL DRAFT <br />