My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CBT/WG Water Sharing Report
CWCB
>
Water Conservation
>
Backfile
>
CBT/WG Water Sharing Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2011 11:57:12 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:01:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Conservation
Project Type
Ag/Muni Grant
Applicant
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Project Name
Ag Options
Title
Interruptible Supply Contracts for Water-Sharing Between the Colorado Big Thompson and Windy Gap Projects
Date
1/1/1996
County
Larimer
Water Conservation - Doc Type
Final Report
Document Relationships
NCWCD Ag Options Program Applic
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
NCWCD Ag Options Program Award Letter
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
NCWCD Ag Options Program Prog Report
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />District role <br /> <br />The initial decision to be made by the District's board is what role the District <br />should play in regard to the negotiation and form of interruptible supply contracts <br />involving C-BT water. There are three basic approaches available, each of which is <br />discussed below,6 Two of these would have the District taking a controlling part in <br />developing contract terms, while the third would allow parties interested in entering into <br />interruptible supply agreements to negotiate independently, with the District fixing only <br />minimum terms as needed to protect the interests of the District and Subdistrict. <br /> <br />The three approaches are as follows: <br /> <br />. The District could formulate appropriate contract terms in advance and develop <br />a form contract for use by all parties contracting for interruptible supply as back-up for <br />borrowing by Windy Gap participants. Only price would remain to be determined, and <br />the same price would ultimately apply to all contracts, <br />. The District may choose to assert control over the contracting process by acting <br />as an intermediary between buyers and sellers, with each side operating as a unified <br />group. While the parties would develop contract terms rather than having them imposed <br />by decision of the District, all contracts resulting from the negotiation process would <br />contain uniform terms, including price. <br />. The District may allow potential buyers and sellers to act independently in <br />negotiating contracts. The District would determine what provisions are necessary to <br />ensure compliance with Project operating requirements and would retain the right to <br />approve or disapprove the resulting agreements based on compliance with those <br />requisites. In this scenario, contracts could vary as to any other terms; contracts would <br />not be uniform and prices could vary. <br /> <br />There are advantages and disadvantages to each option. <br /> <br />District developing standard contract terms in advance <br /> <br />This approach would entail the District board considering input from interested <br />commenters and staff, then applying its own expertise to arrive at standard contract <br />terms that would apply to all contracting parties. This would be followed by a <br />determination of price through a bidding or negotiation process. Ultimately, a uniform <br />price would be paid by all buyers to all sellers under the contracts. <br /> <br />6 There are, of course, possible variations and combinations of these three basic <br />approaches. <br /> <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.