Laserfiche WebLink
Although there is uncertainty regarding the use of $217 per acre foot reduced on -farm <br />deliveries, it is the best available information at this time. Based on an average annual <br />reduction of 11,400 ac -ft of on -farm deliveries in Reaches 17 through 19, the total annual <br />cost of this project would be about $2.5 million. <br />0 Third -Party Impact Considerations: <br />A water management program can alter the timing and quantity of water in the river, in <br />which case, there are potential hydrologic and corresponding economic third party <br />impacts on downstream users. If water conserved through these alternatives is not <br />protected from downstream diversion, there may be positive and negative third party <br />hydrologic impacts. Additional flows under this scenario may allow downstream junior <br />water rights holders to make greater use of their water rights. Additional hydrologic <br />benefits related to changes in irrigation techniques exist for areas prone to high water . <br />tables because groundwater recharge will be reduced. Negative third party hydrologic <br />impacts from these alternatives are most likely to occur to nearby farmers who have <br />traditionally relied on tailwater runoff or groundwater recharge from participating farms <br />for a portion of their water supply. Positive and negative third party hydrologic benefits <br />may be minimal depending on how close to the critical habitat these programs are <br />implemented. <br />Apart from the potential third party hydrologic impacts identified above, there could also <br />be third party economic impacts on agricultural equipment suppliers, farm workers, <br />processing industries and local communities that depend on agriculture. The economy in <br />the study area is dependent on agriculture to a large degree, in which case economic and <br />fiscal conditions are impacted by changes in crop patterns and crop production. For all <br />programs, changes in the farm product can have negative impacts on processors, <br />shippers, purchasers of farm products as well as local livestock growers, and local <br />communities that depend on agriculture. <br />For conservation cropping there may be third party economic impacts on farm workers <br />and input suppliers because of differing requirements between traditional crops and <br />alternative crops grown as a result of the program. Deficit irrigation will likely result in <br />reduced yield, potentially impacting processors, shippers, livestock growers and others <br />relying on this production. If land is reclassified as dryland under a land fallowing <br />program it will have reduced value for tax purposes. A reduction in tax revenues would <br />be a negative fiscal impact. For all water management options considered, if water <br />deliveries are significantly reduced within an individual canal company or irrigation <br />district's service area, company or district revenues may be negatively impacted. <br />Negative third party economic impacts can be reduced to a degree if participating <br />properties are geographically dispersed because it is unlikely that regional crop patterns <br />and the value of crop production would change significantly. <br />Third party environmental impacts associated with water management programs can be <br />both positive and negative. Water quality could improve during the summer months when <br />additional flows are added to the river. However, water quality could be degraded and <br />fish and aquatic habitat negatively impacted during the winter months when river flows <br />are reduced due to reductions in return flows. It is unlikely that a water management <br />program will have any third party impacts on recreational activities. <br />\\DN00 \E- DRIVE \PROJECTS\Platte \Work Products \Task 9 \wapc report (Version 7).doc 34 <br />