Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ ... I(' c. <br />'!. 'l. ".'1- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only on lands of marginal income value to the farmer <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only where lands and crop types will recover quickly <br />from withdrawal of supply <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only to lands where return flow characteristics would be <br />non-deleterious <br /> <br />. interruptible supply of surface water, but not groundwater <br /> <br />. interruptible of supply of groundwater, but not surface water <br /> <br />Other factors considered include the lateral seepage, lateral maintenance costs and <br />operational effects of interruption of supply. Another alternative would be partial <br />interruption, with simply a change in crop type and minimal irrigation necessary to <br />maintain the land during the "interruption period". <br /> <br />Information on effects and successes of temporary non-cultivation, available from the <br />experience of local farmers in the CRP and other fallowing and conservation programs, will <br />be reviewed and presented. <br /> <br />Interruptible supply can also significantly impact the operation and expenses of the ditch <br />company, and require legal changes in the organization of the rules and bylaws of the <br />company, Methodologies for estimating transfer costs, option costs, and ownership costs <br />of water rights will be applied in this study, <br /> <br />Alternative 8: Agricultural Production Interference Charge <br /> <br />An agricultural production interference charge is an alternative which is similar in part to <br />water banking and to an interruptible supply, but with distinct differences. Evaluation of <br />this alternative will consider periodic rental and transfer of water rather than a permanent <br />transfer of a water right. <br /> <br />The study will describe a multi-year contract with payment of an annual standby fee for <br />the right to interrupt and divert the water right of the recipient, plus a larger periodic fee <br />during years when the interference actually occurs. Factors to be evaluated will include: <br />use of recipients land during periods of interruption. <br />ability to provide a safe yield of water more cheaply than developing a <br />supply by traditional means. <br />negotiation of an interference charge sufficiently large to compensate for the <br />annual loss of agricultural production when the option to take the water is <br />exercised. <br /> <br />14 <br />