PUB00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 8/24/92, Page 13 The Dowe Flats option is also attractive because it would be located in an area impacted by surface mining for limestone. Planning for the development of the reservoir in conjunction with mined land reclamation requirements could facilitate permitting of the project. However, the timing of the development of the limestone quarry may not coincide with the need for additional storage. In addition, the feasibility of this project is dependent upon cooperation with other northern Colorado water users including the Northern District. The most attractive way to develop this project would be with linkages to the Colorado-Big Thompson system and in conjunction with development of a delivery system to convey water the northern part of the Denver Metro area. The Clear Creek Reservoir proposal has significant site-specific environmental, permitting and political barriers that could be expensive and difficult to overcome - even for a smaller reservoir than the maximum size described above. These include strong opposition from local communities, water quality problems associated with heavy metals pollution from abandoned mines upstream, and the requirement for relocation of Highway 6 that now serves as the primary access to the gambling industry in Black Hawk and Central City. C. Conversion of Agricultural Water Rights to M&I Use Irrigated agriculture has been and is likely to remain a cornerstone of Colorado's rural economy. However, agriculture is facing challenging times. Real prices of farm products continue to decline while farm commodities programs face increasing scrutiny due to federal budget deficits. At the same time agriculture is confronted with increased capital needs in order to adapt to changing markets and technologies. In many cases.water rights are the largest asset held by farmers. The sale of this asset to municipalities often promises the greatest return to the farmer for this asset, while its continued application to agriculture has a low economic return. Thus, the water management goals of agriculture are entwined with economic realities, and economic pressures are driving the market transfer of water from agriculture to municipal uses. The needs of agricultural users may be characterized as follows: 1. Lonf!-term Certainty of Suooly in Most Years -- Like municipalities, farmers also need a dependable water supply in most years for their operations to remain economically viable. Historically it has been possible for some farmers, particularly those growing feed crops, to withstand shortages in some years, but the economic conditions described above have eroded this flexibility. 2. Drouf!ht Year Suoolies are Relativelv Less Critical -- Unlike municipalities, Front Range agricultural water users have greater flexibility than cities in meeting dry year water requirements. Many agricultural water users in both the South Platte and Arkansas Basins have access to low cost supplemental water supplies from Bureau of Reclamation projects. In addition, most ditch systems have both formal and informal arrangements for sharing of supplies in times of shortage and many agricultural water users benefit from the return flows of transmountain diversions. 3. Water Ouality Considerations -- Farmers have greater flexibility than cities with regard to the quality of water that can be used for irrigation. Higher amounts of sediments and nutrients are sometimes desirable for agricultural systems, whereas municipal water supply systems can experience much higher costs if additional treatment is needed to meet drinking water standards.