|
Section 3
<br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer
<br />Table 3-1 Breakdown of Potential 2030 Chanaes in
<br />Arkansas 17,000-59,000 2,300-4,500 4,000-8,000 - 23,000-72,000 Decrease
<br />Colorado 1,200-2,700 6,700-13,000 - - 7,900-16,000 Decrease
<br />Dolores/San Juan/ 100-200 1,500-3,100 - 2,000-4,000 1,300 Decrease up to
<br />San Miguel 2.400 Increase
<br />Gunnison 300-1,500 2,200-8,500 - - 2,500-10,000 Decrease
<br />North Platte No significant No significant change No significant No significant -
<br /> changeexpected expected change expected change expected
<br />Rio Grande 600-1,100 100-200 59,000-99,000 - 60,000-100,000 Decrease
<br />South Platte 40,000-79,000 38,000-57,000 55,000-90,000 - 133,000-226,000 Decrease
<br />Yampa/Vllhite/ 100-200 1,100-2,400 - 0-40,000 2,600 Decrease up to
<br />Green 39,000 Increase
<br />TOTAL 59,000-144,000 52,000-89,000 118,000-197,000 2,000-44,000 185,000-428,000 Decrease
<br />There could be significant additional reductions in
<br />irrigated acres in the South Platte and Arkansas
<br />Basins beyond the estimates provided in Table 3-1 if
<br />water providers are unsuccessful in implementing
<br />their identified plans such as developing additional
<br />storage to firm existing water supplies.
<br />Furthermore, the effects of Senate Bill (SB) 03-73,
<br />which revised the procedures for replacing out of
<br />priority depletions, was not fully evaluated during
<br />SW SI and greater reductions in irrigated lands may
<br />occur. Figure 3-1 illustrates an estimate of potential
<br />changes by basin. Additional detail on the estimates
<br />~IVhltel No change
<br />North South Platte
<br />39,000. acres Platte -
<br />133,000 to 226,000 acres
<br />~~ . ~
<br />nnison ::~
<br />- ~.
<br />2,500 to 10,000acres , ~ ,f~~ ~,
<br />t'~~ 23,000 to 72,000 acres
<br />~ ~ ®tia'
<br />so,ooo I
<br />,400 acres n to - ~ l
<br />y100,000
<br />,300 acres ~/ acres ~ Arkansas
<br />~1 Rio
<br />anlSan Miguel Grande - ~
<br />Source: Colorado's Decision Support Systems and Basin Roundtable/
<br />Basin Advisor input.
<br />Figure 3-1
<br />Potential Changes in Irrigated Acreage by 2030
<br />of potential changes in irrigated acres for each basin
<br />are included in Appendix F of the SW SI Report.
<br />3.4 Logistics and Dynamics
<br />Associated with Agricultural
<br />Transfers and Select Economic
<br />Information
<br />The total water available under a change of
<br />agricultural water rights typically depends on the
<br />historical CU of the water for agricultural purposes.
<br />CU is the best indicator for quantifying the available
<br />water right for transfer, not the historical gross
<br />diversions. In addition, the yield of an agricultural
<br />water right may depend upon the location of the
<br />new use of the water. For example, in general, if the
<br />water is to be diverted through the same ditch
<br />system as historically, a transfer to M~eI use may
<br />allow diversions of all of the water previously
<br />diverted at the historical farm headgate; however,
<br />the historical CU cannot be increased. The water
<br />that may be diverted in a transfer of water from an
<br />agricultural use to an out of basin use will be limited
<br />to the historical CU. Meanwhile the historical
<br />return flows must be maintained; storage may be
<br />needed to ensure that other water rights that
<br />historically relied on return flows from the water
<br />right that is being transferred are protected. After
<br />the historical return flows have been replicated, it is
<br />3-5 FINAL DRAFT
<br />
|