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