Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />3.7 Questions Addressed by <br />Alternative Agricultural <br />Transfer Roundtable <br />The following mission statement was adopted at the <br />firstTRT meeting: <br />Examine and illustrate how M£tl and other water <br />uses can be met with agricultural rights on a <br />reliable basis without the permanent dry-up of <br />irrigated agricultural land. <br />3.7.1 Technical Questions <br />subcommittee was not able to address the question <br />related to water quality impacts. <br />Table 3-3, inserted at the end of this section, <br />presents information on the various alternative <br />transfer techniques and where each technique may <br />have the most applicability. As noted, actual <br />applications may tend to evolve as a blend of various <br />techniques and Table 3-3 is presented as a guide for <br />the applicability of the techniques. <br />3.7.2 Legal and Institutional <br />Questions <br />Technical Subcommittee Questions <br />The technical subcommittee initially developed two <br />main questions related to the technical issues <br />associated with the implementation of alternative <br />agricultural transfer techniques: <br />1. Are there suitable irrigated lands (having <br />adequate water yield and water quality) available <br />for an alternative agricultural transfer? If so, how <br />do the infrastructure costs compare with a <br />traditional agricultural transfer? How does <br />geography (e.g., stateline vs. upstreamwater <br />right) affect alternatives? <br />2. Water Quality Impacts -What effects will <br />reduced river flows have on water quality issues <br />in the future - TMDLs, salinity, etc.? <br />To compare alternatives, a common method for <br />analysis was needed. The TRT members developed <br />the following technical approach: <br />~ Develop a consistent set of definitions. <br />~ Create a matrix to evaluate opportunities for <br />supply, demand and infrastructure. <br />~ Develop an illustrative example of a rotational <br />fallowing program to more fully describe <br />opportunities and limitations. <br />A common set of definitions were developed as <br />outlined earlier in this section. In addition, a <br />conceptual example of how alternative transfer <br />techniques might be implemented in the Arkansas <br />Basin was presented. Due to time constraints, the <br />Lega( Subcommittee Questions <br />The legal subcommittee developed five questions <br />related to the legal issues associated with the <br />implementation of alternative agricultural transfer <br />techniques: <br />1. Are legislative/regulatory changes needed to <br />implement the proposed program(s)? <br />2. What is the water court process related to the <br />program' (s') approach and implementation? <br />3. Should the program(s) be administered by the <br />end user, governmental agency, or by the <br />agricultural water rights owners or ditch and <br />reservoir companies? <br />4. Can the program(s) be successful if the <br />agricultural user is not required to bind the land <br />and water to irrigation? <br />5. What program conditions are needed to ensure <br />that private property rights are not impaired? <br />The legal subcommittee organized their evaluation <br />into Table 3-4, inserted at the end of this section, <br />which includes discussion of the above questions. <br />3.7.3 Financial Questions <br />Financial Subcommittee Questions <br />The financial subcommittee had three main <br />questions related to the costs of each transfer <br />technique, the compensation for participation in the <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-21 <br />