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
assessment of the RFID administration fee.
2. RFID makes changes in district by-laws as
needed to allow the transfer.
3. RFID seeks a voluntary fallowing plan from each
farmer, including acreage to be fallowed each
year, CU savings estimates, and dollar amount
desired from MU.
4. MU and RFID establish 10-year fallowing plan
from farmer bids. If all the RFID farmers
participate, 5,000 acres would be fallowed each
year.
5. MU and RFID jointly prepare a water court
application and pursue a change of use case as
needed.
6. MU contracts with farmers for fallowed land
water savings. A 10 percent fallowing program
would yield 10,000 AFY, assuming senior water
rights yielding 2 foot per acre CU.
7. MU pays costs and administrative fees to RFID
Financial Subcommittee Question 1
"What are the costs to organize and
administer a program and who are the
parties that could contribute to the
costs?"
Organization and administration costs of the
rotational fallowing program would include costs
associated with the provision of information to
RFID farmers, meetings between participating
farmers and the RFID, meetings between the RFID
and MU, the management of contracts between MU
and RFID and management of individual contracts
between RFID and participating farmers,
monitoring of fallowed acres for compliance with
contract provisions, and other contracts or
approvals from agencies such as the State Engineer,
where applicable.
It is reasonable to expect that a comprehensive FS
and tactical plan would be done before negotiations
began for any fallowing program. The FS could
include information on the expected participation
rate of RFID farmers, the program payments, and
details of the physical aspects of the water transfer.
The fallowing programs used as a basis for the
example indicate that costs for a FS could
reasonably be in the range of $200,000 to $250,000.
Up-front administrative costs, generally on the part
of the irrigation district, could be in the range of
$25,000 to $50,000. Annual administrative costs,
also on the part of the irrigation district, could run
from $75,000 to $125,000. Although there could be
some cost sharing among the parties involved, in
most cases it would be the purchaser, or end user, of
the water (MU) who ultimately pays for the
administrative costs by reimbursing the irrigation
district.
Supporting Information:
1. In the MWD-PVID program, MWD paid/pays
for all administrative costs. MW D reimbursed
PVID for all expenses.
2. In the SDCWA-IID program, there was some
cost sharing between parties, mainly because the
transfer agreement was part of the larger QSA.
In the agreement between Aurora and Rocky
Ford, Aurora paid for most of the administrative
costs.
4. In the MWD-Sacramento Valley program,
In addition to monetary costs, there is a time administrative costs included several meetings
element associated with many of the organizational between various parties.
and administrative activities. Certain tasks, such as
FINAL DRAFT 3-25