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
Table 3-9 An Evaluation of Water Banks Compared with
• Demonstrated success • Bank organization
• Unintrusive for farmer
and buyer
• Promotes efficient
• Front-end investment in
institutional arrangements
and infrastructure
• Critical mass of buvers and
• Uncertain benefit to sellers
itional Agricultural Transfers
•. - -. -
• Buyer-seller groups or state lead
• Time, money
• Screen basins for favorable
conditions
• May not get needed revenue
• Requires will, leadership, and
broad support
• Who will pay?
• Limited application
• Can't count on initial)
• Uncertain availability of • May not find the supply that the • Can't count on initially
useful supply for buyers buyer needs
• May not keep land in • Must understand seller intentions • Progress toward underlying goals
agriculture uncertain
There are other drawbacks to water banks, not the
least of which is considerable organization efforts
and front end investment with considerable
uncertain benefit to buyer and seller.
3.9.3 Alternative Cropping
Practices
Table 3-10 lists the major advantages and issues
associated with reduced agricultural consumptive
use through efficiency or cropping.
Alternative cropping patterns and related
conservation have been used in certain instances as
an alternative to traditional agricultural transfers.
The advantages are that on-farm conservation and
alternative cropping patterns can allow for some
water to be removed from the farm and made
available to meet other water needs while
maintaining existing agricultural operations. There
are significant disadvantages; requiring agricultural
water conservation or alternative cropping patterns
is invasive to the farmers. A farmer needs the
flexibility to adjust his agricultural activities and
cropping patterns to meet a changing marketplace
and if that flexibility is inhibited, it will reduce his
viability and interest in participation. Further, on-
farmefficiency oftentimes requires an up-front
investment which further reduces the opportunity
for the water buyer to establish a favorable price
with the farmer as seller. Proof of water savings and
measurement of that savings is also a disadvantage.
There will be high administration enforcement costs
and the SEO needs a way to recover administrative
costs. Any savings must be in a reduction of CU that
can be verified and monitored. This technique,
however, may be of benefit to agricultural areas that
are facing reductions in irrigated lands due to issues
with tributary groundwater pumping, such as
inadequate augmentation supplies or unsustainable
levels of pumping. Alternative cropping could
reduce the overall consumptive use, and the
corresponding need for augmentation or retirement
of irrigated lands.
3.9.4 Purchase and Leaseback
Table 3-ll lists the major advantages and issues
associated with purchase and leaseback agreements.
Purchase and leaseback programs are one of the
most common forms of agricultural water transfer in
Colorado. They are a simple transaction where the
farmer is able to continue for a temporary, and
sometimes unknown, period of time and the
purchaser gets control of the water and can use that
water when needed. Importantly, the purchase and
leaseback programs are not really alternatives to
traditional agricultural transfers; these programs
only temporarily delay traditional agricultural
transfers for a period of time. Other drawbacks, for
the farmer in particular, and agriculture in general,
are the unpredictable nature of the transaction. The
farmer bas no indication of how long he or she will
be farming, unless the leaseback period is specified
at the time of sale.
FINAL DRAFT 3-31