Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />Applications and Limitations of the <br />Example <br />An example based on reports, data, and anecdotes <br />from actual fallowing programs provides some <br />evidence for how future rotational fallowing <br />programs could be organized and administered. <br />However, the creation of the rotational fallowing <br />example described herein and the outcomes <br />provided reflect only the few existing cases. The <br />process of creating and operating a new rotational <br />fallowing program could be much different than the <br />one illustrated in the example above, depending on <br />the specific circumstances and characteristics of the <br />parties involved. The terms of any transfer will be <br />dependant on the water rights of the agricultural <br />users, specific agricultural operations, the <br />requirements of the buyer and other details of <br />physical transfer, and the potential urbanization or <br />conversion of the agricultural land to other uses. <br />There are several advantages and disadvantages to a <br />traditional agricultural transfer program as <br />compared with a rotational fallowing program, as <br />shown in Table 3-6. <br />Table 3-6 Advantages and Disadvantages of a Traditional <br />Agricultural Transfer Program as Compared with a Rotational <br />Fallowin Pro ram <br /> <br /> <br />• Simple, clear, and certain. • Loss of agricultural production. <br />• Maximized benefit to any • Possible third party impacts to: <br />farmer whose family is -Other farmers, ranchers; <br />really finished farming. -Local businesses; <br />• Rewards farmer's long- -Viability of local community; <br />term investment. -Sense of community; and, <br />• Can do a water leaseback. -Local governmentjurisdictions. <br />• Can keep in open space • Possible environmental and <br />through easements. recreational impacts if historic <br />• Buyer gets the water. return flows made in a different <br /> location. <br />• Buyer has maximum <br />flexibility. . Other institutions may be <br /> <br />• Buyer has certainty in cost impacted due to loss of local <br />economic activity if land is not <br />and yield (after water court used to produce other revenue. <br />transfer completed). . Possible loss of open space if <br /> land is developed. <br /> • Loss of future business potential. <br />Table 3-7 summarizes the benefits and issues of a <br />rotating fallowing program. <br />Table 3-7 Benefits and Shortcomings of a Rotational Fallowing <br />Pro ram <br />. •. •. <br />• Encourages continuation of • Works best with larger irrigated <br />agriculture with hard dollars. areas. <br />• Encourages maintenance of • Easiest to set up with a single <br />open space. lessor, i.e., irrigation district, large <br />• Maintains bulk of historic farmer. <br />return flows in all years. • Somewhat restrictive, invasive to <br />• Financial compensation to farmers. <br />farmer including potential for • Substantial up-front effort can be <br />long-term stability and required. <br />support for ag operations. . Less likely to have success in <br />• Helps meet future water areas with development potential <br />needs. unless it is coupled with <br />• Limits third party impacts. environmental or open space <br />• Preserves rural economy program. <br />and lifestyle. • Presents risk to end user unless <br /> agreement is perpetual or <br />~ provides for acquisition or <br /> renewal by end user at end of <br /> contract ar right of first refusal. <br />The benefits of this program are clear if the goal is <br />preservation of the rural economy and lifestyle, but <br />the drawbacks in terms of farmer participation and <br />effort to establish can be underestimated. Although <br />there are likely to be some challenges in getting a <br />successful fallowing program started, there are many <br />more advantages than drawbacks to this type of <br />alternative transfer. <br />3.9 An Evaluation of Other <br />Alternative Agricultural Water <br />Transfer Techniques <br />An abbreviated evaluation of other transfer <br />techniques that are discussed in this section is <br />offered in the tables and discussion that follows. The <br />discussions below are restricted to a comparison of <br />the specific transfer technique with a traditional <br />agricultural transfer. In each case, there will be <br />circumstances or instances of applicability, but <br />noteworthy shortcomings as well. <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-29 <br />