Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A. Ft. Lyon Canal Company issues: relevant to farmers and ranchers served by the ditch <br />company; <br /> <br />1. Water supply and the ifldividual farm business <br />2. Ft. Lyon Canal CompaflY operations and finances <br />3. Environmental; and ecosystems <br /> <br />B. Regional issues: relevant to citizens of the larger study area, including water users not <br />directly associated with the contpany; <br /> <br />1. Water supply; quality, quantity and distribution <br />2. Economic, financial and social; commerce, opportunity and quality of life <br />:3. Environmental; riparian wetlands and plains ecosystems <br /> <br />C. Statewide issues: of concern to all Coloradans, the State government, and the <br />Colorado General Assembly. <br /> <br />A. Ft. Lvon Canal Comoanv Issues <br /> <br />Issues evoked by water transfers which are internal to the Ft. Lyon system revolve around two <br />themes. These are 1) individual losses and Ilains of farmers related to irrigation water supply <br />and personal finances, and 2) the ability of tile ditch company to provide cOntinuing service to <br />shareholders. Internal issues are therefore presented from the perspective of the shareholders <br />remaining in the system, when adjacent farms are retired from full-time irrig3tion. The concerns. <br />are primarily of three types - continued historiC water supply, adverse changes in ditch and lateral <br />operations, and financial impacts on farming cOSts and property values. <br /> <br />1. Water Supply and the individual farm business <br /> <br />Historically, water transfers have required a change in the point of diversion. Row to the ditch is <br />reduced. This affects the flow characteristics of the canal in several ways. The water surface is <br />lowered and the hydraulic head required to ma!!:e deliveries is not maintained. Additionally, there <br />is an increase in seepage loss as a percentage of total flow. <br /> <br />The changes in flow regime within the ditch have traditionally been addressed by construction of <br />checks or mechanisms to elevate the water surf3ce and by requiring the sellers to leave a portion of <br />their water in the canal to offset evaporation and seepage loss. A benefit from a transfer occurs for <br />canals which historically have been limited in hydraulic capacity to make deliveries. The excess <br />capacity accrues to the remaining shareholders. An alternative approach to the allowance for <br />seepage losses is to line portions of the channel. However, lining could reduce historic return flows <br />on which other surface water users rely, and interfere with water supplies to existing alluvial wells <br />below the canal. Changes may also impact well usage. Incremental increases in reservoir <br />evaporation also may occur. <br /> <br />2-6 <br />