Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />RICDs and available environmental coverages <br />could be used to determine if any critical areas <br />are located downstream of return flows. <br />The following screening criteria may not be needed: <br />The overall irrigation system efficiency is less <br />than 30 percent. This screen is likely not needed, <br />since any river headgate diversion >4.0 AF/acre will <br />have an irrigation efficiency less than 30 percent and <br />will be included in screening criteria #4. <br />Results of the screening exercise could be <br />summarized in a table and maps. The purpose would <br />be to identify areas with potential for further study. <br />Other considerations would also need to be factored <br />in the next phase of analysis. These would include <br />issues such as which water rights might potentially <br />benefit from the reallocation of the water, effects on <br />streamflow basinwide from the reallocation, and <br />examination of questions regarding ability to pay <br />and institutional barriers. <br />3.12 Conclusions and <br />Recommendations <br />3.12.1 Population Growth, <br />Urbanization, and Issues Associated <br />with Reliable Water Supply <br />Population growth, urbanization, and issues <br />associated with reliable water supply availability are <br />key factors that are leading to a reduction in <br />irrigated farmland in Colorado. In addition there are <br />significant financial, economic, and demographic <br />factors (i.e., increasing average age of farmers and <br />ranchers and fewer "young" people choosing it as a <br />career) that are influencing the trend toward <br />reduced farming and ranching in Colorado. <br />Commodity prices, access to markets, fuel, <br />equipment, and labor costs are a few examples of <br />these factors. This report did not address these <br />factors. It is essential to acknowledge that while one <br />can examine and explore alternate methodologies to <br />purchase and permanent transfer of water from <br />agriculture and this may in turn assist in <br />maintaining viable agricultural and ranching, unless <br />these other factors are addressed the attractiveness <br />and viability of farming and ranching overall will <br />continue to be a challenge. <br />3.12.2 Future M£tl Water <br />The M~eI providers and users who need additional <br />M~eI water in the future have diverse needs <br />including potential growth (rate and pattern), raw <br />water infrastructure, and existing portfolio of water <br />rights (i.e., water for base demand, water to replace <br />non-renewable groundwater supplies, water for <br />drought years, water for drought recovery, and <br />water to replace interstate compact calls). For <br />example, by 2030, water demand in Douglas and El <br />Paso counties that are currently onnon-renewable <br />groundwater is projected to be near 100,000 AFY. <br />Thus, there needs to be a number of alternative <br />permanent agricultural transfer methods <br />(interruptible supplies, fallowing, banks, etc.) <br />available to match the irrigator's and users' needs. In <br />addition, these alternatives must be flexible enough <br />to allow variations to meet specific source and user <br />situations. One size will not fit all. <br />3.12.3 Property Rights and/or Local <br />Issues <br />Many subcommittee members expressed concern <br />over how this process and involvement of the state <br />might negatively affect the price of water, property <br />rights, and/or local issues associated with water <br />transfers. There are strong opinions on every side of <br />the issue of water transfers; there are those that wish <br />to retain their ability to sell water to the markets <br />that provide the greatest returns; there are those <br />that may not be part of the transfer and may wish to <br />participate and share in the economic benefit; there <br />are those that may not be part of the transfer that <br />benefit (open space, views, wildlife habitat etc.) <br />from the presence of the agricultural water user; and <br />there are those that simply do not wish to see <br />transfers. In addition to these opinions, the other <br />key driver that influences how transfers are <br />perceived and implemented relates to who retains <br />ownership of the water (the agricultural user or the <br />new end user) and what type of organizational/ <br />institutional structure is "best" to ensure equity for <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-39 <br />