Laserfiche WebLink
• as alternatives to permanent agricultural dry-up in the South Platte and Arkansas river <br /> basins, including but not limited to, interruptible water supply agreements, long-term <br /> agricultural land fallowing, water banks, reduced consumptive use through efficiency or <br /> cropping while maintaining historic return flows, and purchase by end users with <br /> leaseback under defined conditions. The board, in consultation with the basin water users, <br /> shall develop the detailed grant program design. <br /> (2)The moneys appropriated in subsection(1) of this section shall remain available for <br /> the designated purposes until the project is completed. <br /> Background <br /> Traditional agricultural water transfers have historically been, and continue to be, an <br /> important component of most Municipal and Industrial (M&I)water providers' strategic <br /> plans toward meeting growing water demands. Generally, in areas of the state where <br /> urbanization and transfer of water are occurring concurrently there is less concern over <br /> economic and social impacts as other industries and benefits ultimately accrue to the <br /> local community. However, one could argue that the loss of open space and diverse <br /> landscapes can be detrimental to the area. <br /> In contrast, when water is, or may be,transferred from more remote and rural areas that <br /> have limited development potential, there is a deeper concern over the impact to the local <br /> economy and the long-term viability of the community. This can result in a division <br /> . between the benefits that may accrue to the seller of the water rights versus potential <br /> impacts to the overall community. <br /> In both of the above cases there may be circumstances where alternatives to traditional <br /> agricultural water transfers may be advantageous to all parties to the transfer, while <br /> mitigating impacts and providing benefits to the source community and potentially to <br /> other third party interests. Such alternatives to traditional water purchases may allow <br /> more rural areas that are heavily reliant on an agricultural economy to remain <br /> economically viable while providing water in some or all years for other uses. <br /> Alternatives to traditional agricultural transfers may also present opportunities for local <br /> governments desiring to increase the reliability of their water supply system as well as <br /> establishing areas for open space, trails,parks, wildlife habitat or other uses within and <br /> between communities. Ideally, the alternatives may facilitate the ability for some <br /> irrigated agriculture to remain active among and between existing and future municipal <br /> boundaries. <br /> It is recognized that exploring "transfer" alternatives that are not entirely market driven <br /> raises questions not easily answered. Such questions run the spectrum- from quantifying <br /> the 'quality of life'some Coloradoans equate with having local irrigated agriculture, to <br /> concerns over interfering with property rights, the market price of water, and the future <br /> plans of local water providers for meeting their future water needs. It is further <br /> recognized that alternatives that deviate from traditional approaches may be more costly <br /> but may also have a broader array of beneficiaries. As a result, a conventional cost- <br /> 410 2 of 6 <br /> Final Criteria and Guidelines <br /> Adopted January 22,2008 <br />