My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Section3_AgricultureWithTables
CWCB
>
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
Section3_AgricultureWithTables
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:29:51 AM
Creation date
1/10/2008 1:49:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Section 3 <br />Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Traditional Purchase and Transfer <br />~ Table 3-2 provides some information on selected <br />crop enterprise budgets including projected gross <br />receipts and net revenue per acre for various <br />crops and irrigation methods. This information <br />was prepared by Agriculture and Business <br />Management Economists at the Colorado State <br />University Cooperative Extension. This <br />information indicates some irrigated crops can be <br />grown for a net profit, while some irrigated crops <br />would likely result in a loss. Profits and losses <br />will vary based on the actual crop yield and <br />market prices for the specific crop for that season. <br />The crop budgets indicate that dryland crops <br />would likely result in a net loss or a very minor <br />profit and there are very narrow margins on <br />which farming practice succeed or fail. Enterprise <br />budgets are very sensitive to fertilizer and fuel <br />prices, and are not intended to be predictive but <br />rather to benchmark outcomes from a large set of <br />specified inputs including prices and sales prices <br />for outputs. This also complicates comparisons <br />across years. <br />Dryland cropping of agricultural land has a lower <br />assessed value than irrigated agricultural land. In <br />Colorado, unless the farm or ranch has <br />development or recreation potential, much of the <br />value of a farm or ranch may be derived from the <br />accompanying water rights. Figure 3-2 illustrates <br />the differences in 2005 assessed value for irrigated <br />and dryland farmed agricultural land for the <br />major downstream agricultural counties in the <br />South Platte Basin. For these counties in the <br />South Platte, the weighted average assessed value <br />for sprinkler irrigated land is $89/acre, $102/acre <br />for flood irrigated, and $21 /acre for dryland <br />farmed (Colorado Department of Local <br />Affairs 2005). As shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3, <br />assessed values for irrigated land in select <br />Revegetation of formerly irrigated lands is <br />required by law under certain circumstances. <br />Colorado statute, in some instances, requires that <br />an entity transferring and permanently drying up <br />irrigated lands ensure that the land is revegetated <br />with plants not requiring supplemental irrigation. <br />This can be a difficult, costly, and time- <br />consuming process. Maintenance of revegetated <br />lands through subsequent changes in land <br />ownership and/or lessees has proven problematic <br />in the past. Conversion of cultivated farm ground <br />to non-cultivated natural grasslands can create <br />wildlife habitat. <br />~ Maintaining land in agriculture preserves the <br />open space nature of the property and benefits <br />the general public. If water is transferred from <br />irrigated lands, the land may be more susceptible <br />to development for other uses, since nonirrigated <br />agricultural use may be less economically viable. <br />~ There is a potential loss of wetlands, terrestrial, <br />and riparian habitat. Return flows from irrigated <br />agriculture often result in the creation of local <br />wetlands, terrestrial, and riparian habitat. While <br />historic return flows must be maintained for a <br />traditional agricultural transfer, these <br />replacement return flows may not necessarily <br />sustain other historic third party beneficiaries <br />such as wetlands and habitat. <br />FINAL DRAFT 3-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.