Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(4) requiring financial compensation to basins of origin in the form of a $5/ acre <br />of land payment in the first year of water export to an AMA, and $7/ acre- <br />foot of actual water transferred (to be used for economic development in the <br /> <br />county); and <br />(5) mandating municipal payments in lieu of taxes to counties from which water <br />is transferred to soften the economic impacts.55 <br /> <br />The legislation passed the House but failed to get out of Senate committee. Strong <br />rural opposition led to its defeat (although five of the seven no votes in Senate committee <br />came from legislators representing urban districts). Representative Herb Guenther from <br />La Paz County, who has been involved in negotiations on proposed water transfers since <br />their inception, had reservations on several points. His principal concerns were: <br />(1) the 65 percent level for permissible groundwater exports from reserved <br />basins was too high (he supported a figure of no more than 50 percent); <br />(2) two-thirds of the reserved basins from which groundwater could be <br />transferred were in a single county--La Paz--which shifted too much of the <br />export burden onto one area of the state; <br />(3) the water transfer fee--$7/acre-foot--was too low; it represented only 1.4 <br />percent of the nominal value of water compared to 2.5 percent for fees on <br />other nonrenewable resources in the state (the assumption being that <br />transferred groundwater is, in essence, "mined"); <br />(4) water farms were not reclassified as commercial property for tax assessment <br />purposes (in Colorado's Arkansas River Valley, there is concern that retired <br />farmland will be downgraded to a grazing c1asssification, thus reducing <br />revenue-raising potential); and <br />(5) local governments were given no involvement in the water transfer approval <br />process,56 <br /> <br />26 <br />