Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />t <br /> <br />conserved water, not farmers. The involvement of canal companies and irrigation districts in the <br />provision of secondary water is an excellent way of accomplishing this water conservation goal in a more <br />equitable way. <br /> <br />The provision of secondary water by canal companies and irrigation districts is expected to result <br />in a more orderly transfer of agricultural land and water to urban uses. First, agricultural water rights are <br />difficult to transfer into urban treatment facilities, both legally and from an engineering standpoint. It is <br />much easier to convert agricultural water rights to residential landscape use within an agricultural water <br />supplier service area. <br /> <br />Second, an economic analysis of secondary water shows that it is most profitable to agricultural <br />water suppliers when delivered to higher density residential development. This promotes more compact <br />subdivision development in urban fringe areas, and promotes more residential development on less <br />productive agricultural lands. <br /> <br />Third, the provision of secondary water by canal companies and irrigation districts provides <br />opportunities for these entities to secure better control of their facility rights-of-way, and provides <br />opportunities to reduce such urban encroachment externalities as trash, vandalism and canal drownings. <br />This is accomplished by using the revenue stream from secondary water service to modernize canal <br />facilities and to hire more employees to supervise the system when needed. Again, this is paid for by <br />urban water users who have penetrated deep into these canal service areas, rather than by farmers having <br />to pay increased canal assessments or land taxes to cover these urban encroachment costs. <br /> <br />It is recommended that this study be shared with municipalities and developers in Colorado, in <br />order to promote greater involvement of traditional agricultural water suppliers in secondary supply. <br /> <br />It is recommended that funds be made available for staff members and directors of these entities <br />to visit their counterparts in Utah and Idaho, in order to learn more about how they can become involved <br />in pressurized secondary supply. <br /> <br />It is recommended that the sample ordinances found in the study (Chapter 6) governing the <br />promotion and use of secondary systems be communicated to municipal and county governments. <br /> <br />Finally, it is recommended that the state, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and <br />such organizations as the Farm Bureau, communicate to the agricultural community the findings of this <br />report, and that the state help make available attractive financing ofthese endeavors when agricultural <br />water suppliers express interest in them. <br /> <br />Weare pleased to share this report with you. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />John Wilkins-Wells <br />Principal Investigator <br />Assistant Professor, Senior Research Scientist <br />Sociology Water Lab <br />Department of Socio logy <br />C tate University (970-491-5635) <br /> <br />Terence H. Podmore <br />Co- Investigator <br />Professor and Co-Director <br />Colorado Institute for Irrigation Management <br />Department of Civil Engineering <br />~ University ~W-1624) <br /> <br />. ~~~~L- <br /> <br />