Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />community. Farming communities and regional <br />centers will benefit as well. <br />Assuming historic return flows are preserved in the <br />historical locations and amounts, the environmental <br />benefits of a fallowing program would be reflected in <br />the wetlands, other vegetative areas, and wildlife <br />habitat in the area that might have disappeared as a <br />result of a permanent transfer of agricultural water, <br />depending upon the location and means of providing <br />for historic return flows after the transfer. <br />Financial Subcommittee Question 4 <br />"What portion of the total land and water <br />rights value will need to be paid to an <br />agricultural user as compensation for <br />enrollment in a program?" <br />A useful benchmark would be the weighted average <br />net income per acre for crops grown within the <br />RFID plus an incentive payment to induce <br />participation, plus costs of weed and erosion control <br />and property taxes on the fallowed land. <br />Open space or green space preservation is another <br />potential benefit if farming is preserved. Local <br />government invests significant sums in the <br />preservation of open space. The presence of ranching <br />and open space also promotes recreation and <br />tourism in certain areas of Colorado. Non-irrigated <br />agriculture (dry-land farming) or not developing the <br />land under a traditional agricultural transfer are <br />other means to maintain the open space benefits. If <br />the agricultural lands subject to an agricultural <br />transfer are significant distances from urbanized <br />areas, it is likely that the open space value of the <br />land will be preserved, regardless of a traditional <br />agricultural transfer. <br />Supporting Information: <br />1. In the MWD-Sacramento Valley program, <br />historic return flows were preserved and no <br />downstream environments or wildlife areas <br />were adversely affected. <br />In the agreements between MWD- PVID, <br />SDCWA-IID, Aurora and Rocky Ford and <br />MWD-Sacramento Valley, financial support was <br />given to farmers who wanted to remain in <br />farming and farmers continued to spend money <br />in both the farm and non-farm sectors of the <br />economy. <br />Supporting Information: <br />1. In the Aurora-Rocky Ford program, payments to <br />participants were partially based on the value of <br />the expected yield of current crop types. <br />2. In the MWD-Sacramento Valley program, <br />payments were based on commodity prices. <br />In the MWD-Sacramento Valley and the MWD- <br />PVID programs, farmers were responsible for <br />weed control and erosion, but program <br />payments were higher. <br />Financial Subcommittee Question 5 <br />'Are there additional incentives needed <br />for agricultural users to participate in <br />these programs when their rights can be <br />sold for large sums to M£tl users?" <br />Yes, RFID farmers must receive enough of a payment <br />to supplement the finances on the remaining farming <br />operation. This will vary from place to place. <br />Farmers who want to remain in agriculture are likely <br />to be willing to participate in a program that will <br />allow them to do so while providing some financial <br />support To remain viable as an agricultural <br />operation, the financial incentive would have to <br />more than cover the lost production from fallowed <br />acres. Farmers who are more inclined to leave <br />agriculture would need a larger incentive. Local <br />agricultural users with pending urbanization <br />represent a different case than is used in this <br />example. <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-27 <br />