Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />program, and economic impacts of a rotational 3. $, 2 Case Studies and Reports <br />fallowing program: Ut1llZed <br />~ What are the costs to organize and administer a <br />program and who are the parties that could <br />contribute to the costs? <br />~ What portion of the total land and water rights <br />value will need to be paid to an agricultural user <br />as compensation for enrollment in a program? <br />~ How do the annual local economic impacts of a <br />rotating fallowing program compare with a <br />permanent dry-up that includes voluntary <br />payment in lieu of taxes? <br />The financial subcommittee organized their <br />evaluation into Table 3-5, inserted at the end of this <br />section, which includes discussion of the above <br />questions. <br />3.8 Development of Rotational <br />Fallowing Examples <br />3.8.1 Organization of Rotational <br />Fallowing Alternative Transfer <br />Example <br />Rotational fallowing was selected as a detailed, but <br />hypothetical example of an alternative agricultural <br />transfer technique. The financial subcommittee's <br />questions best lent themselves to using rotational <br />fallowing as an example technique to examine <br />program costs and provide an economic comparison <br />between alternative techniques and permanent dry- <br />up. In addition, a rotational fallowing example was <br />created to describe how a fallowing program might <br />work and to help answer the subcommittee's <br />questions. <br />A general discussion of each of the alternative <br />transfer techniques is also included in this section. <br />The potential advantages, impediments, remedies, <br />and remaining problems specific to each of the <br />alternative transfer techniques are discussed. <br />Several agricultural water transfer case studies and <br />documents were reviewed and utilized in <br />completing this section. Many of the case studies <br />were interviews conducted with irrigation districts <br />and municipal water districts. These brief <br />generalizations may not fully capture all legal <br />obligations, nor does Colorado necessarily endorse <br />the out-of-state programs described here for <br />example purposes only. <br />~ Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and <br />Sacramento Valley, California One Year <br />Transfer Options: MWD purchased 1-year <br />options for water from 11 Sacramento Valley <br />irrigation districts, mutual water companies, and <br />others in 2003 and again in 2005. MWD exercised <br />those options only in 2003, paying farmers an <br />additional sum. Farmers in the water districts and <br />water companies were required to fallow a <br />certain amount of acreage. Additional <br />infrastructure was not required to implement this <br />program. <br />~ MWD and Imperial Irrigation District (IID): <br />This transfer agreement is part of the larger <br />Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The <br />QSA is an agreement between four water agencies <br />and the State of California that includes water <br />transfers and other agreements that will reduce <br />California's over use of Colorado River water to <br />the level provided for under the Colorado River <br />Compact. The MWD-IID agreement is for the <br />transfer of water from IID to MWD of water <br />realized solely as a result of IID canal lining. <br />~ Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and <br />IID: This agreement is also a part of the QSA and <br />is a transfer of conserved water from IID to <br />CVWD. IID water will be available for transfer to <br />CVWD as the result of on-farm conservation <br />practices and canal lining. <br />~ MWD and Palo Verde Irrigation District <br />(PVID): The Palo Verde Land Management, Crop <br />Rotation, and Water Supply Programis a long- <br />term rotational fallowing program. Growers <br />3-22 FINAL DRAFT <br />