CBT/WG Water Sharing Report

• 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

Assured availability of units to the C-BT system

In order to obtain District approval of an interruptible supply contract offered as
back-up supply for Windy Gap borrowing of C-BT water, the parties should be required
to establish that the units subject to the contract will be available to the C-BT Project
when needed to repay a water debt. Review at the time of initial contract approval
would be similar to the title search performed in connection with permanent transfers of
C-BT units. The District's interest in the units during the term of the contract should be
recorded so that it will be recognized as a claim on the units. The board may wish to
establish a requirement that the parties to interruptible contracts furnish periodic
(perhaps annual) assurances that the units subject to the contract remain available to the
District when called for.

Payment of District assessments

The District's policy, as reflected in C-BT allotment contracts, is that the allotment
holder is responsible for payment of District assessments. The guidelines for
interruptible supply contracts should state that the allottee will remain liable to the
District for payment of all assessments, but that parties entering into such agreements are
free to make whatever arrangements they wish as to who ultimately bears the financial
burden of the assessments. For example, the parties may provide that the buyer will
either reimburse the seller or make the payment directly to the District on the seller's
behalf.

The amount of the annual assessment varies according to the classification of the
water, with municipal and industrial water typically assessed at a higher rate than water
for agricultural use. The guidelines therefore should specify how the water will be
classified in the years that water is transferred under the contract.

Disapproval of contract based on overall review

The District should include in its guidelines a provision that the board may refuse
to approve a contract if it finds that the arrangement is not in accordance with applicable
law, contracts, or the District's rules, regulations or policies. The guidelines should
further provide that, when a contract is rejected by the board, a statement of the basis
for the board's action will be furnished at the request of the contracting parties.

Protecting non-parties to the contract

In the course of the District's public involvement efforts, a number of comments
were made expressing concern about the possible impacts of interruptible supply
arrangements on non-parties to the contract. The anxiety most frequently expressed was
in regard to the effects of these transfers on other water users, through reductions in the
quantity of water in a ditch, changes in flow patterns, diminution of the amount of water
available on the rental market, or loss of water to a tenant farmer with compensation
going to the unit-holder rather than to the tenant. A lesser degree of concern was

24