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 />Final decision on contracts. <br />How many years will it take to get past the planning stage? How interested are <br />municipalities in these contracts? <br />Would like to know all details. <br />"Who is behind this hair brained (DIA) type thinking?" <br />How will it be determined that shortage exists? How will water owners be <br />protected from cities who don't buy enough water for normal years? <br />Why is this being proposed and can it be implemented without vote by <br />shareholders? <br />Hasn't read up and doesn't feel informed about these contracts. <br />'That you have shelved the whole idea." <br />"Someone should admit that it was a bad idea." <br />"A lot more than I know". <br /> <br />16. Please give us any other comments you have. <br /> <br />Municipal users need to conserve (e.g., not watering grass, water-saving <br />appliances); consider cap on amount each person can use for domestic purposes. <br />He's very dependent on District water, especially in dry years; in very dry years, <br />most of his water is rented District water. If lessors transfer water to cities under <br />interruptible supply agreements instead of making it available to him, he's out of business <br />whether he signs an interruptible contract or not. Doesn't own enough units of District <br />water "for an interruptible supply contract to save me from a year with little or no <br />water." "Major concern." <br />"Even temporary losses of water control to the voting public would cause <br />problems." <br />Interruptible supply contracts are just a way for developers to build more houses <br />and increase Front Range population "to help destroy the quality of life we once had." <br />If farmers can get over being too cautious and conservative, and not be too <br />greedy, could do a lot of good working together with the cities. <br />Had impression this would be annual; why not let municipalities rent water on <br />annual basis at going price, like everyone else? <br />If program is implemented, be ready for lawsuits from farmers left high and dry. <br />Please don't implement this program. <br />Let municipalities figure out how to get own water, and pay for it, without <br />reducing water table or taking it away from farmers. <br />"Let the municipalities handle their own problems." <br /> <br />Domestic users -- 11 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 />Yes 4 <br />No 0 <br />Don't know 7 <br /> <br />A-ll <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.