My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00133
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00133
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2010 8:58:18 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:22:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1990
Title
Western Water Transfers: Public Interest Impacts
CWCB Section
Interstate & Federal
Author
Larry Morandi
Description
Examination of the public interest impacts of western water transfers
Publications - Doc Type
Historical
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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 />neither the town [Rocky Ford] nor the county [Otero] objected to the <br />transfer. No demands for mitigating tax payments, gradual phase-out of <br />farming operations, "last use" of the water by Aurora or first right of refusal <br />for leases to local water users were asserted. Neither the city nor the county <br />attempted zoning or permitting regulations under their police powers with <br />respect to the transfer.39 <br /> <br />As was the case in the Crowley County water transactions, the court imposed <br />conditions on the transfer to ensure that existing water rights would not be impaired. <br />Other stipulations were the result of negotiations between Aurora and the transfer's <br />opponents that the court affirmed. The most significant condition was a revegetation <br />requirement to prevent soil erosion and proliferation of noxious weeds accompanying the <br />drying up of formerly irrigated land. Resource Investment Group, Ltd., began planting <br />grass cover in 1988. Aurora determined that RIG's efforts would fail and, as the party <br />whose transfer was contingent on a successful revegetation program, took responsibility in <br />1989, RIG and Aurora were subsequently held in contempt of court for failing to complete <br />the revegetation program within one year and were fined $2,000 each.40 <br /> <br />Aurora has spent $4.3 million--or nearly 10 percent of the $46.5 million total <br />purchase price for the Rocky Ford and Colorado Canal water rights--on revegetation.41 <br />The city maintains a full-time office in Crowley County to oversee the program. One of the <br />difficulties the city will face in complying with the conditions regarding the Colorado Canal <br />transfer is that the revegetation goal is "not so much. . . reestablishment of native species <br />but rather of an economically viable dry land forage crop...42 <br /> <br />The court-imposed conditions derived from negotiations between the party <br />proposing the transfer--the city of Aurora--and the objectors--principally the Rocky Ford <br /> <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.