Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c. Loss of retail and wholesale trade will cause some local businesses to close or <br />relocate outside the study area, reducing the vitality of the community and its <br />attractiveness to new economic development. <br /> <br />Financial burdens are imposed upon other water users. They frequently participate in water court <br />cases for the purpose of protecting supplies, and must bear the expense of expert advice from <br />attorneys, hydrologists, agronomists and water quality consultants. Currently there is no provision <br />for transfer of those expenses to applicants for a transfer, (except C.R.S. 37-92-304(3.5) as to mutual <br />agricultural ditch shareholders) and the burden of those expenses discourages objectors from <br />addressing their concerns in court. An argument in favor of the existing process is that it imposes <br />less restraint on the movement of water supplies to higher economic uses. Cost protection for <br />objectors would further restrain these changes of use. <br /> <br />Water transfers affect the social structure and interactions in the community. The overall quality <br />and character of life can be undermined in areas where historical irrigation is suddenly terminated <br />(Shupe, Weatherford and Checchio 1989, 429); the people of the area lose their psychological and <br />cultural "roots" (Weber 1990b, 15); even in highly homogeneous communities, proposed water <br />transfers create conflicting interpretations among residents regarding the proper relationship between <br />the physical and social environments and the proper relationships among themselves (Greider and <br />Little 1988, 47). <br /> <br />If community impacts are to be mitigated there is little consensus as to what would constitute fair <br />and adequate mitigation, and who should judge the adequacy of mitigation. Possibilities include the <br />courts, local government, or state government. Water courts have a limited role in third party impact <br />mitigation (Pratt 1988). Some mitigation proposals raise issues of who pays or who receives <br />payment. Such proposals may include payments in lieu of taxes; compensation to individuals, <br />businesses or local governments; economic development efforts; "banking" of compensation measures; <br />and requirements for severance-type payments. <br /> <br />3. Environmental; riparian wetlands and plains ecosystems <br /> <br />The ecology of the vicinity of a large ditch is influenced by the quantity and quality of water, and <br />variability in supply. Water use influences the soil, plant, and microclimate characteristics of the <br />land. Irrigated lands and related hedgerows, wetlands, and reservoirs create important ecosystems <br />for the eastern plains. Also derived from the environment are recreation uses and aesthetic beauty, <br />with attendant economic and social benefits. <br /> <br />Regional environmental issues include: dryland habitat impacts, including hedgerows and drainage <br />corridors; wetland habitat impacts, including wetlands arising from ditch and lateral seepage, surface <br />waste flows and drains, outcrops of underground return flows, tail water ponds, and return flow fed <br />stock ponds; open water areas, including nesting, resting, and forage habitat for local and migratory <br />waterfowl; possible influences upon endangered species habitat. <br /> <br />2-10 <br />