Laserfiche WebLink
<br />out of the Ft. Lyon system have produced conflict among the shareholders over these and other <br /> <br />matters. <br /> <br />3. Environmental; and ecosystems <br /> <br />Shareholders have concerns about the welfare of adjacent lands and the associated environmental <br />attributes. These concerns are essentially the same as those expressed on page 2-10, Regional <br />Environmental. <br /> <br />B. Relrional Issues <br /> <br />Issues relevant to citizens of the fIVe-county study area, including water users not directly <br />associated with the company, are called third-oartv issues because these issues are not always <br />directly addressed in the transfer transaction. While water rights holders have standing with the <br />water court, some other third parties may not. Other water users bear the benefits or detriments <br />of an increased or decreased water supply resulting from changed river regimen after a transfer. <br />Water quantity and quality may affect farm yields and income, with widespread implications. The <br />concept of mitigation, i.e. the off-setting or compensation, of the adverse impacts of water <br />transfers raises additional issues such as who pays for mitigating these effects, who receives relief <br />and who decides such questions. <br /> <br />1. Water supply; quantity, quality and distribution <br /> <br />Water transfers always affect the supply to other water users on the stream. The removal of water <br />from historically irrigated lands eventually affects return flows to the stream, and the water supply <br />of downstream users. Because a lesser supply to downstream users may increase their need for other <br />water originating further upstream users may also be adversely affected due to decreased return flows <br />after a transfer. <br /> <br />To supply high quality water to their users, the metropolitan areas prefer the waters from high <br />mountain streams and reselVoirs. When this source of water is limited, denied or of high cost, <br />agricultural water may be purchased Water is also exchanged from the lower Arkansas River <br />upstream to headwaters areas. The water quality of the lower Arkansas River can deteriorate <br />because this high quality water is used before mixing with the local return flows. An off-setting <br />factor in the water quality issue is the reduction of irrigation practice, since irrigation also degrades <br />water quality (Miles 1977). Water quality can also affect water quantity. For example, clear water <br />scours ditches and causes increased seepage losses, while silty water seals ditches and allows greater <br />water delivery to fields. <br /> <br />Water users and others, whether agricultural, municipal, industrial or recreational, desire to protect <br />the quantity, quality and timing of their water supplies. Effects on these users are increasingly being <br />recognized by the courts. <br /> <br />2-8 <br />