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 />A2ricultural nsers -- 28 responses received <br /> <br />3. Based on what you currently know about interruptible supply contracts, do you think <br />that these arrangements might have Dositive effects on farmers in your area? <br /> <br />1(es 8 <br />No 16 <br />Don't know 5 <br /> <br />(Note: Responses total more than 28 because one respondent checked both "no" and <br />"don't know".) <br /> <br />Specific effects listed by those answering "yes": <br /> <br />Extra income source for farmers in short-term, to keep their operations afloat. <br />Prevent water being sold only for future use. <br />May keep some farmers from selling water rights to cities since they can make <br />additional money through these leases. Could keep more shares in agricultural use <br />because cities won't buy extra for dry-year supply. <br />Might get money from lease. <br />In dry years, farmer might make more money from contract than from farming. <br />Cash flow in dry years. <br />Income <br /> <br />4. Based on what you currently know about interruptible supply contracts, do you think <br />that these arrangements might have detrimental effects on farmers in your area? <br /> <br />1(es 19 <br />No 4 <br />Don't know 4 <br /> <br />Specific effects listed by those answering "yes": <br /> <br />Changes in flow patterns. <br />In longer term, will lead to loss of water on the farm. As growth continues, <br />definition of a "dry year" will change so that occasional use becomes frequent. <br />Agriculture needs water in dry years just as towns do. <br />Farmers need water in dry years. <br />In drought, both farmers and cities need water. <br />In exercise years, will be harder for farmers to get rental water because cities will <br />have even more water tied up than they already do. <br />Water shortage. <br />Loss of crops in drought years. <br />Losing use of water. <br />Concerned that interruptible contract might include first right of refusal for buyer <br />to purchase water if farmer decides to sell. <br /> <br />A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.