Laserfiche WebLink
<br />There may also be a higher level of acceptance by water users of the concept of <br />interruptible supply agreements if the District is seen as integrally involved in <br />development of the contracts. Potential sellers may be more receptive to approaches <br />made by the District in regard to entering into these arrangements than would be the <br />case if they were approached by individual prospective buyers. They may also be more <br />willing to participate in negotiations involving the District in a key role because they may <br />see the District as protecting their interests in the contracting process. <br /> <br />A major disadvantage of this approach is that it will require a high level of District <br />involvement of staff time and resources. While potential contracting parties would take <br />on a larger burden in developing contract provisions than if the District were to <br />promulgate a standard contract, as in the first scenario, the District would be integrally <br />involved in all negotiations. <br /> <br />The District would also run the risk of being "caught in the middle" between <br />buyers and sellers, subject to conflicting demands by the two sides. It would be <br />incumbent on the District and its staff to maintain neutrality and avoid even the <br />appearance of favoring the interests of one group over the other; in practice, it is likely <br />that there would be a perception of unfairness. In fact, the probable outcome would be <br />that both buyers and sellers would feel that the District was favoring their opponents. <br /> <br />Another disadvantage is that imposition of uniform terms on all parties precludes <br />tailoring contracts to the parties' individual needs. This can result in imposing less <br />advantageous terms on some parties, or discouraging some otherwise interested parties <br />from entering into contracts. Also, the District could find itself in the position of <br />imposing arbitrary terms as to some provisions, for the sake of uniformity, even where <br />some variation might be acceptable from the District's standpoint and could better meet <br />the needs of the parties. <br /> <br />As with the first approach discussed above, another problem with this procedure is <br />determining who may participate in representing the interests of buyers and sellers as <br />contract terms are negotiated. Allowing parties who currently have no direct stake in the <br />contracts an equal voice with those who would be more immediately bound by them <br />could impose unfair burdens on the latter group, while restricting input to those parties <br />interested in entering into contracts at the present time could yield a contract whose <br />terms may be less appropriate for other parties who pursue such arrangements in the <br />future. In that event, the District would be in the position of either continuing with a <br />standard agreement that had become inappropriate, or developing new form contracts in <br />the future; the latter course of action would impose an additional burden on the District, <br />and the desired uniformity in contract terms would be lost. <br /> <br />Independent negotiations; District role limited to imposition of basic requirements <br /> <br />A third option is to allow individual buyers and sellers to negotiate independently <br />and develop their own contracts. The District would impose certain basic requirements <br />designed to ensure that agreements comport with District operational needs and cause no <br /> <br />19 <br />