21 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 1/23/2008
• Description: IWMD Section - Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods Grant Program - Adoption of Criteria Guidelines
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Moreover, the grant program authorized under S.B 07-122 is not intended to interfere
with or criticize traditional transfers of agricultural waters. It is recognized that water
rights are a form of a property right and such waters will be necessary to help satisfy
Colorado's future water needs. The grant program is intended to further our
understanding and potential implementation of alternative transfer methods and to sustain
agricultural areas of the state where they are deemed to provide high values to our
communities and the state as a whole. It is also hoped that the grant program will
improve our understanding of how and when alternatives to traditional agricultural
transfers may present benefits to not only the parties to the transfer, but other third party
beneficiaries.
As a key component to this grant program and to better understand alternatives to
traditional agricultural transfers it is important to establish the fundamental difference
between "reducing crop consumptive use" and what some call" improving efficiencies in
agricultural irrigation practices". Although improving efficiencies in irrigation practices
may directly or indirectly influence surface and sub-surface return flow patterns to the
adjacent river system, and may also influence water quality, in most instances such
improvement rarely produce water available for transfer. For the purposes of this
competitive grant program, consumptive use (CU) is defined as the water that is
physiologically utilized by the crop and is viewed as the ultimate ``beneficial" use of
water. Generally speaking, CU equates to a crops evapotranspiration.
This grant program focuses on identifying and assisting in the development of
agricultural transfer methods/programs that reduce consumptive use by reducing the
amount and/or the type of crops planted and irrigated from historic levels while lessening
the impact to rural communities. It is this reduced consumptive use, not the reduction in
gross diversions (i.e., changes from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation etc.) that can
potentially be transferred to an alternate use. Overall the goal of the alternative transfer is
to minimize the geographic focus of the associated impact and optimize both the
agricultural and nonagricultural benefits of the remaining lands and community.
Several types of agricultural transfers have been proposed as potential alternatives to the
traditional agricultural transfers that often result in permanent dry-up of all or a large
portion of irrigation systems as a means to obtain additional water supplies for emerging
needs. Conceived transfer methods include, but are not limited to: 1) interruptible water
supply agreements; 2) long-term agricultural land fallowing; 3) water banks; 4) reduced
consumptive use through efficiency or cropping changes while maintaining historic
return flows; and 5) purchase by end users with leaseback under defined conditions.
By no means is the listing exhaustive nor should it be considered advocacy for one or
more alternatives. It is hoped that these methods will form the initial basis for discussion
and evaluation of alternatives to traditional agricultural water transfers.
Ultimately, how M&I providers and environmental and recreational users who desire
additional water in the future to meet their diverse needs will be very site/situation
specific. It is likely that a diverse and unique set of alternatives and strategies will be
3 of 6
Final Criteria and Guidelines
January 22, 2008