Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />site specific. If the land is in an urbanizing area, <br />significant additional incentives might be needed <br />The annual economic impacts of a rotating fallowing <br />program are generally much less than a traditional <br />agricultural transfer that results in a permanent dry- <br />up with no development of the land Farming is <br />allowed to continue in an area; local businesses, <br />communities, and local government continue to be <br />viable under a rotational crop fallowing program <br />The small amount of production lost is offset to <br />some degree by income received by the farmers <br />which they also can expend in the local community. <br />Although debates have arisen in some communities <br />related to local economic impacts, the rotational <br />fallowing example described herein would result in <br />a minimal amount of third party economic impacts. <br />If the land is converted to dryland farming or other <br />revenue producing uses, the impacts might be less or <br />even positive, if the land is developed for higher <br />revenue generating uses. This development potential <br />is limited, however, for areas that are significant <br />distances from urbanizing areas. <br />Besides rotating crop fallowing programs, other <br />alternative water transfer techniques offer certain <br />advantages and disadvantages and might be <br />appropriate in very specific circumstances. Purchase <br />and leaseback water transfers are the most common <br />form of alternative agricultural transfer in Colorado <br />and are particularly advantageous in areas of <br />pending urbanization of agricultural lands. <br />Alternative cropping and related on-farm <br />conservation programs have been utilized in <br />California but as voluntary programs; these present <br />challenges. Interruptible supply agreements, a <br />variation of the rotational crop fallowing program, <br />create more uncertainty for the farmer and the <br />buyer, but might be attractive in certain <br />circumstances. <br />Table 3-12 provides an example of some, though not <br />all, of the goals that motivate two parties <br />contemplating a water transfer. The preferred water <br />transfer program in a particular location and point <br />in time is based upon that program's ability to <br />satisfy both the objectives of the buyers as well as <br />the sellers, as outlined in Table 3-12. <br />Table 3-12 Typical Goals of Buyers and Sellers in an Agricultural <br />Water Transfer Program <br />• . .- ~. <br />• Increase in firm annual yields, • Maximize dollars, cash out <br />minimal losses (some users) <br />• Certainty • Continue in agriculture <br />(some users) <br />• Ease of permitting Protect private property <br />• Minimize direct environmental • Preserve water and <br />impacts subject to regulation agriculture in Basin (some <br />• Minimize infrastructure cost • Supplement finances to <br />• Compatibility with existing water • Minimal disturbance to <br />portfolio system agricultural operations, <br />record keeping <br />• Minimize transaction cost <br />Source: Harvey Economics, 2006 <br />When considering alternative agricultural water <br />transfer programs, it is important to recognize the <br />site specific needs and desires of both the buyers, <br />typically M~eI users, and the sellers, typically <br />irrigated agriculture. <br />3.10 Infrastructure <br />Considerations for Rotational <br />Fallowing for Major Gap Areas <br />Information from this TRT and report can be <br />utilized to develop some initial concepts for <br />addressing some of Colorado's future water supply <br />needs. These concepts have been discussed and <br />examined by the Gap TRT and the reader is <br />encouraged to review that portion of the SWSI <br />Phase 2 Report for more information. A brief <br />summary of the general approach and conclusions <br />are summarized in this section. SWSI identified <br />M~eI gaps inmost basins. The two largest gap areas <br />were the south metro Denver area in the South <br />Platte and northern El Paso County in the Arkansas <br />Basin. Both of these areas are onnon-renewable <br />groundwater and will need significant amounts of <br />new renewable supplies, even if aggressive water <br />conservation is implemented. The SWSI Report <br />identified a 2030 gap of 50,000 AFY in the south <br />metro area and 8,000 AFY in northern El Paso <br />County. This gap estimate assumed that current <br />levels of groundwater pumping could continue <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-33 <br />