Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Would affect every business that farming touches, such as implements, hardware, <br />seed dealers, fertilizer companies, chemical companies, automobile dealerships, sugar <br />industry, livestock market, many others. <br />Not enough to eat. <br />Help cities and water districts in dry year and also pay farmer to leave land idle. <br />Consumers would be hurt because price of farm products would go up in drought <br /> <br />years. <br /> <br />Price of farm products would go up because crops would decrease. <br /> <br />(Note: some respondents did not foresee any effects on others than farmers.) <br /> <br />6. Based on what you currently know about interruptible supply contract arrangements, <br />do you think they're worth investigating as a supply alternative for northern Colorado? <br /> <br />Yes 9 <br />No 11 <br />Don't know 8 <br /> <br />Specific comments: <br /> <br />Don't know - believes they are "dangerous option" but hard to judge at this time <br />whether benefits outweigh dangers. <br />Yes - inevitable that Front Range cities wiIl take water and farmers lose it, so <br />farmers should make some money out of it since they have no ultimate control. <br />Don't know - worth investigating, but shouldn't be seen as solution to watet. <br />shortages because then no efforts will be made to develop additional water resources; <br />need to develop additional water storage despite recent EP A dictates. <br />No - we shouldn't overdevelop. <br />Yes - thinks they're very good idea. If farmer had foresight to buy extra water <br />years ago, he should reap benefits of it. Front Range will boom with growth and cities <br />need water; this seems good way for them to get it. <br />Yes - "maximize resource use". <br />Yes - given current farm economies, it's a form of alternative crop. <br />No - would foster growth and conversion of farmland out of agricultural use. <br />Yes - some water owners will be able to enter into interruptible contracts which <br />could increase municipal emergency/drought supply. <br />No - Program benefits only municipal users, and he understood District was ag- <br />oriented. <br />No - municipalities already waste too much water; future development should be <br />restricted. <br />No - farmers need water in dry years. <br /> <br />7. Since the District does not intend to set the price, how do you think the price for <br />interruptible supply contracts should be set? <br /> <br />Fixed offer by buyer - 2 <br />Buyer to make initial offer, followed by negotiations with potential sellers to <br /> <br />A-7 <br />