Laserfiche WebLink
<br />injury to other C-BT allottees, but would otherwise allow the parties to agree to any <br />terms they wish. <br /> <br />This approach would result in a significantly lower burden on the District's <br />resources. Another notable advantage of an individualized approach to contracting is <br />that the agreements could be tailored to meet the needs of the particular parties to each <br />contract. Both buyers and sellers participating in these arrangements will have individual <br />situations that may best be addressed through developing contract provisions designed for <br />the particular parties involved. <br /> <br />Allowing individual negotiations rather than a District-controlled approach also <br />will promote the development of contracts that accurately reflect market conditions, <br />rather than distorting the market through imposed provisions. <br /> <br />Interruptible supply contracts are a new form of supply arrangement for most <br />water users in the District's service area. Initially, it is to be expected that only a small <br />number of buyers and sellers will be actively interested in participating in these <br />arrangements. It may be a preferable approach to allow these "pioneers" to explore <br />interruptible supply arrangements with minimal oversight by the District. Their <br />experience can serve as the basis for a more uniform approach in the future if that <br />appears to be appropriate. <br /> <br />The disadvantages associated with allowing individual negotiations rather than a <br />uniform approach moderated by the District are evident from the above discussion. <br />Contract terms will not be uniform, so that some parties may feel that they got a bad <br />deal in comparison with their neighbors. District review and approval of proposed <br />agreements will be more complex than with a single uniform contract. Some potential <br />sellers may believe that the District is not making adequate efforts to protect their <br />interests. <br /> <br />Recommendation regarding District role <br /> <br />At the outset of this study, the consultant and members of the District's staff <br />involved in the project contemplated that it would be possible to develop specific <br />guidelines as to all, or virtually all, terms of interruptible supply contracts used as back- <br />up supply for Windy Gap borrowing of C-BT waters, and perhaps even a form contract. <br />However, it appears inappropriate -- and perhaps impossible -- for the District to try to <br />achieve that level of specificity at this stage. The District will be an interested third-party <br />as to contracts involving C-BT water, but it will be neither the buyer nor the seller under <br />such contracts. It therefore cannot realistically anticipate and resolve the many issues <br />that may arise in individual contracting situations. Moreover, that degree of uniformity in <br />contract terms may be undesirable. <br /> <br />Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each role for the District, the <br />preferable approach appears to be that the District refrain from either mandating a <br />uniform contract developed by the District or taking a central role as the intermediary in <br />negotiations. The District should limit its requirements regarding the contracts to those <br /> <br />20 <br />