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 />Iyr 3 <br />5 yrs 11 <br />10 yrs 3 <br />20 yrs 2 <br />30 years 0 <br />40 years 0 <br /> <br />(Note: Zero and one-year terms were not offered as options in the survey form, but <br />were written in by several respondents. Some respondents who said in #10 that they <br />would not consider entering into an interruptible supply contract checked periods of time <br />here. ) <br /> <br />Specific comments explaining the term selected: <br /> <br />Reasons given by respondents selecting a 5-year maximum term -- <br />Doesn't trust the legislature and courts to interpret the law in the same way for <br />any longer than that. <br />After that period of time, a seller could determine whether to "sell .out and get out <br />of the area." <br />Uncertainty about the financial outcome of interruptible supply contracts. <br />Believes that water always appreciates in value, making a short term preferable. <br />"Times and demand change" <br />"Price fluctuations" <br />Wouldn't want to tie up assets for a longer period. <br />Unpredictable future and advancing age. <br /> <br />Reasons given by respondents selecting a 1O-year maximum term -- <br />"Uncertain beyond the period". <br />'Try it and see if it works." <br /> <br />One respondent selected a 2o..year maximum term, with "reasonableness" given as <br />the explanation. <br /> <br />One respondent first checked 5 years, then crossed it out and said 1 year, <br />commenting that planning is difficult on a long-term basis. <br /> <br />15. What else would you like to know about interruptible supply contracts? <br /> <br />How much water would still be passed by to downstream users? <br />Do ditches have any control? Contracts will affect delivery of all water. <br />"Will the renter claim farmer's water when used or the next year?" <br />What will stop cities from buying enough shares to eliminate the small user from <br />getting water through a smaller ditch? <br />Effects on non-participating farmers who are dependent on District water. <br />Detailed written explanation of various scenarios of how plan would work. <br />Has gone to meetings and no city has made an offer of what they'd be willing to <br /> <br />pay. <br /> <br />A-10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.