C150069 Benefits & Potential Roles Report

Home Browse Search

. . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . Concerns Voiced by Canal Companies and Irrigation Districts Since we are suggesting a significant new role for traditional irrigation companies and irrigation districts, the provision of pressurized secondary water supply for residential parcels and lots, the study was designed to identifY the set of circumstances under which these agricultural water suppliers could and would voluntarily expand their traditional operation that now serves predominately agricultural irrigation. Although the involvement of traditional agricultural water suppliers in secondary systems is a common practice in other areas of the Rocky Mountain region, particularly along the Wasatch Front Range in Utah and in Idaho's Boise Valley, it is fully recognized that many irrigation company and irrigation district boards may not want to enter into this type of water service. They may be fearful that efforts are simply being made by those promoting such involvement to commandeer their water rights without paying for them. In addition, traditional agricultural water suppliers may not want to assume the new responsibilities that might be associated with providing secondary supply. The future involvement of agricultural water suppliers in secondary water supply to residential property, small farms, and large rural subdivision lots will undoubtedly depend on the willingness of irrigators to allocate a portion of the irrigation company's decreed water rights to this purpose. There may also be legal "change of water use" issues, although this appears unlikely at this juncture for Colorado. According to the Colorado State Engineer's Office, the use of irrigation water for residential and commercial lawns, gardens and city recreational facilities is not considered a change of use. Third party injuries could playa role in certain instances. These issues will be taken up in Chapter 7. Figure 8 - Typical Potable Water Demands on Municipal Water Systems Without Pressurized Secondary Systems. 120000 How to trim summer outdoor usage on large (or small) lots......? 100000 80000 60000 I D Thousand GaUons I 40000 20000 . . . by further increasing water rates and development fees, or by teaming up with another viable water supplier? o Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. In addition, irrigators have concerns about (1) continued adequate water supplies to maintain irrigated agriculture needs into the future, (2) the range of realized economic benefits to the canal company or irrigation district from providing secondary water supply, (3) the present physical condition of the irrigation system and the cost of retrofitting this system to meet urban fringe and rural residential subdivision needs, and (4) the potential availability oflow interest loans or cost sharing with federal or state agencies to finance these systems. Yet other concerns include the future financial health of the canal company or irrigation district, the use of metered versus unmetered secondary water service and associated costs, and the demand by residential property owners for year-round versus seasonal (traditional irrigation season) secondary water service. These concerns are included in a checklist appraisal of key considerations for the boards and staffs of canal companies and irrigation districts to examine before getting involved in secondary water service. This checklist is discussed later in the report. The study attempted to identifY a step-by-step, low risk "method of entry" by traditional agricultural water suppliers into secondary water service, when their stockholders or district landowners are favorable to this business innovation for their enterprise. The checklist appraisal was implemented on two canal companies seemingly well positioned to provide pressurized secondary supply in the future. It is assumed that until such time that a revenue stream is well-established through secondary service, canal 8