Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Many comments were received regarding reluctance to see water moved from <br />agricultural use to municipal use under interruptible supply arrangements on the grounds <br />that municipalities are water-wasters with no real need for additional water. There were <br />repeated comments regarding the need for improved municipal water conservation and a <br />new ethic for municipal water use that reduces what is seen as an overemphasis on lawns <br />and other inappropriate landscaping. <br /> <br />Many commenters expressed strong concerns about population growth in the <br />region and the role of water transfers in fostering that growth. Some respondents object <br />to any mechanism for shifting water from agricultural to municipal use because they view <br />such reallocations as a way to promote growth which they oppose and which they see as <br />threatening to their way of life. Conversely, some agricultural users, along with municipal <br />and industrial representatives, see interruptible supply contracts as a way to ensure the <br />continuation of a strong agricultural economy despite municipal growth. <br /> <br />Municipal and industrial position <br /> <br />Municipal and industrial water users have been supportive of the District's <br />investigation of interruptible supply contracts in general as well as for the specific <br />purpose of furnishing back-up supply to support in-lieu deliveries of C-BT water to <br />Windy Gap. This is reflected in the support of the Windy Gap Participants Committee <br />as well as in comments and questionnaire responses from municipal and industrial users. <br /> <br />A perception that interruptible supply arrangements would be beneficial for <br />municipal and industrial users themselves was not the only reason for their support. <br />These users repeatedly commented that they saw these contracts as advantageous for <br />agricultural users as well, because they would help to keep water ownership -- and use -- <br />in agricultural hands, and could provide a financial benefit to farmers without the latter <br />relinquishing their rights to the water. <br /> <br />Some of these users are, however, skeptical that interruptible supply contracts can <br />serve their needs in a realistic way. They expressed concern that prices for such <br />contracts might be so high that outright purchase of water rights would be preferable. <br />Ownership rather than lease of water would provide a higher level of control and <br />stability, This was reflected in the view of some municipal commenters that, if <br />interruptible arrangements were pursued, it would be preferable to purchase the water <br />and lease it back to the seller, subject to interruption by the buyer. <br /> <br />District role <br /> <br />A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding the role of the District in <br />connection with interruptible contracts involving C-BT water. Some were worried that <br />the District is no longer sufficiently oriented toward or supportive of agricultural water <br />users, and that investigation of arrangements for water-sharing between agricultural and <br />other uses was indicative of that change. <br /> <br />14 <br />