My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00101
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2010 3:55:22 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:17:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1994
Title
Fort Lyon Canal Company Water Transfer Alternatives Study - Final Report
CWCB Section
Finance
Author
Gronning Engineering
Description
Analysis of the alternative approaches to, and the results of the transfer of agricultural water supplies from the Ft. Lyon Canal Company to alternative uses
Publications - Doc Type
Brochure
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
204
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 />ditch company whose operation is controlled by all irrigators on the ditch. The buyer desires <br />confirmation that a certain minimum quantity of transferable consumptive use water will be available, <br />and that the water will be deliverable to its place of need. In some cases the water is to be <br />exchanged upstream to a storage location and pipeline intake, although sometimes a downstream <br />storage location and pipeline intake can be used. <br /> <br />The buyer typically prefers a water supply with senior decrees because less supply fluctuation will <br />occur. Associated reservoir storage close to the location of diversion or use, and a low purchase cost <br />and low transaction costs are important considerations for a buyer. Also important is a high degree <br />of certainty that the governmental permits and water court transfer decree can be obtained with <br />acceptable requirements. Crucial to the buyer is the ability to control the ditch company in order <br />to prevent obstruction of its change of use of shares by changes in the company articles, bylaws, or <br />procedures. Because of the cost of delivery facilities, the buyer usually seeks a range of supply, i.e., <br />a large enough supply to obtain economies of scale, but not so large that the supply is excessive or <br />the capital cost is out of reach. <br /> <br />All terms of the purchase and sale contract are negotiable, and contract terms are highly variable. <br />In some cases, the buyer bears the risk of successful transfer and consumptive use determination; <br />in other cases the seller bears that risk. <br /> <br />A variety of governmental permits and authorizations may be required. Because of the presence of <br />federally operated reservoirs on many major streams, federal storage authorizations may be required. <br />U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits may be required, as are rights of way over <br />federal lands for pipelines. One of the federal actions may trigger a fish and wildlife endangered <br />species consultation. State permits are required for rights of way over state lands for pipelines and <br />for water treatment facilities. If water treatment results in discharge of a waste, state water quality <br />permits for point source discharges will be necessary. Both federal and state parks and recreation <br />areas border most major streams; changes in stream flow may require consideration by federal and/or <br />state agencies. An additional possibility that currently no such restrictions exist in the study area. <br />In Colorado, local governments may enact land-use codes which impose restrictions on water <br />diversions or change in water uses, as well as zoning requirements on land use. To date, no such <br />restrictions are in place in the five county study area. <br /> <br /> <br />The water rights transfer process occurs in the special water court with responsibility for the <br />particular stream basin. Interested parties may file statements of opposition. Typically owners of <br />other water rights, including minority shareholders in the ditch, file statements of opposition, <br />asserting that their water rights could be adversely affected if the transfer request is granted without <br />terms and conditions to prevent material injury to their water rights. On occasion, other interested <br />persons or groups file statements of opposition and participate in the case. Generally the state <br />engineer participates to assure compliance with generally accepted hydrologic analysis, compliance <br />with state rules and regulations, and to encourage appropriate methods of administration of and <br />accounting for water being transferred. While a water rights owner or holder clearly has standing <br />to participate in the case, the Colorado supreme court has not resolved the standing of other third <br />parties. The extent to which the water court may act to protect third party interests which are not <br /> <br />2-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.