Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the city of Aurora purchased additional water rights. By 1980, the four urban entities <br />owned 94 percent of Twin Lakes stock.28 <br /> <br />The transfer scenario was similar for another water rights' holding entity--the <br />Colorado Canal, a mutual irrigation ditch. As the result of sales of Colorado Canal stock <br />from 1985 to 1988, Colorado Springs accounted for 56 percent of ownership and Aurora, 29 <br />percent,29 <br /> <br />Farmers holding water rights in Twin Lakes and the Colorado Canal chose to sell <br />for a number of reasons, Kenneth Weber, an anthropologist formerly with the University <br />of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, found that the principal rationale was to get <br />out of debt: "Many saw the the sales of their water rights today under conditions somewhat <br />under their control preferable to the potential of a sheriffs sale [due to bankruptcy] <br />completely beyond their control tomorrow.',30 Sales of water rights enabled farmers to <br />retain their land (even though it might no longer be suitable for farming absent irrigation), <br />and the prices received for the water rights often were higher than the land values ever had <br />been. Older farmers without children who wanted to remain in agriculture were more, <br />likely to sell than younger farmers or those with a generation that wanted to remain on the <br />land.31 <br /> <br />Although the massive sale of water rights may eventually spell the end of irrigated <br />agriculture in a region, farming can remain viable in the short-term. Municipal buyers may <br />not be able to put newly purchased water to use immediately because of delays in <br />development projects or demands for water only in dry years. They may offer to lease it <br />back on favorable terms to the original sellers or to other farmers seeking supplemental <br />supplies to expand their operations. <br /> <br />18 <br />