Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Some farmers on Platte Valley ditch have only 1/2 to 1 share and take as much <br />water as anyone else when there's river water. Interruptible supply contracts might hurt <br />them because might be less water in ditch; but they don't complain when they get more <br />than their share. <br />More uncontrolled growth and more farm land for development. Making water <br />available for domestic use will lead to population growth; why subsidize it? <br />Potential large economic hit of no cash crop in a given year due to loss of water. <br />Less control over water would create uncertainty from year to year that would <br />rapidly bankrupt farmers. <br />C-BT is supplemental supply for dry years; "now you want to take it in dry years <br />for city use." <br />Incentive for more municipal development; people will have precedence over <br />agriculture if water is scarce. <br />Farmers need water in dry years; "municipalities waste it on lawns, shrubbery, <br />private pools and showers." <br />Farmers won't get water they need in dry years. <br /> <br />5. Based on what you currently know about interruptible supply contracts, do you think <br />these arrangements might have effects on others (besides fanners)? Who do you think would <br />be affected and what would the effects be? <br /> <br />Specific effects listed in response: <br /> <br />Big effect will be to promote more growth, development and people, becau~e <br />interruptible supply contract will be cheaper for developer to get than outright purchase <br />of water right, so municipalities will use interruptible supply contracts as cheap source of <br />back-up water so no new water development will be deemed necessary. This will make <br />everyone except farmer complacent about water supply. People who move to Colorado <br />don't understand that water is scarce resource and therefore won't accept water <br />restrictions when they become necessary. Anything that agriculture does to ease water <br />supply situation will lead to confiscation of water in prolonged droughts. Interruptible <br />contracts can be means of temporary transfer to municipalities as long as they aren't <br />considered a permanent solution to the water supply problem. <br />"Cities could use the 'problem' of special water use to raise charges. Then city <br />users would find it not as convenient to use a lot of water without conservation." <br />City dwellers may not have to worry about excess water use even in dry years. <br />Possible overdevelopment due to disregard of water resources. <br />Urban sprawl, excessive domestic water use (e.g., lawn watering) <br />This is way for cities to obtain water and dry up farm land. <br />Urban areas would have water source when there's short supply. <br />Some farmers use too much chemicals and fertilizers; if they transferred their <br />water under an interruptible supply contract and didn't farm, that would reduce <br />groundwater nitrate/chemical levels, to everyone's benefit. <br />More domestic use; less farm production. <br />Cities/towns with expanding population could have extra water without owning it. <br />Could be financial option for those with poor quality supply, temporarily. <br />Making water available for municipal use leads to undesirable population growth. <br /> <br />A.6 <br />