Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MWSl Project <br />Interruptible Supply Framework Repon - DRAFT <br /> <br />August 21, 1995 <br /> <br />(e.g, mandate to develop a management plan for the Edwards Aquifer) or 3) security of <br />long-term supplies, Cooperation in the development of such agreements are often <br />facilitated when the selIer 1) agrees with the overall principle of temporary transfers, <br />especially for municipal purposes and 2) sees this type of arrangement as being the <br />"lessor of two evils" or as having minimal risks. Note that in many of the examples <br />mentioned in Section 4, a wilIingness on the part of the seller was at least partially <br />based on concerns of future events, In the Yakima example, farmers were concerned <br />that they would, in the future, lose some of their water to salmon in any even!. and <br />they preferred to do so in a way that yields an economic benefit to them (pinncs, <br />1994), In addition, the minimal risk involved in the MWD/Dudley Ridge and <br />MWD/Santa Clara agreements resulted in a higher level of willingness to enter such <br />agreements on the part of the irrigators. <br /> <br />4.1.4 Minimal Agricultural Operational Issues <br /> <br />Site-specific operational issues on the part of the seller need to be considered <br />when looking into the feasibility of an ISC arrangement. A specific farm operation <br />must look at how it would deal with a temporary absence of all or a portion of its <br />irrigation supply - Can it switch to another water supply? Can it s{."itch to alternative <br />crops? Can the farm temporarily refrain from the production of crops and avoid long- <br />term problems? In the case of transferring a portion of a larger entitlement, would <br />reduced flow impact irrigation operations on otherwise "non-impacted" areas of the <br />farm? How many consecutive seasons could a transfer occur before "temporary <br />impacts" start to look like "permanent impacts"? This issues are very site-specific and <br />would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />4.1.5 Minimal Third Party Impacts <br /> <br />There are several potential third-party impacts which may result from exercising <br />dry-year options, Some of these impacts are discussed below. In each case, there is a <br />need to somehow recognize threshold damage issues - How much and how often can <br />supplies be interrupted before significant impacts occur either to the region or <br />individual third-parties or entities? These issues will need to be explored on a case-by- <br />case basis, using information from past experiences. <br /> <br />4.1.5.1 Environment <br /> <br />Potential environmental impacts include I) dust and wind erosion of fallowed <br />land, 2) impacts on groundwater if groundwater pumping increases as a result of <br />transfers, and 3) impacts on ecosystems which may arise due to altered water use, <br /> <br />4.1.5.2 Local Economic Impacts <br /> <br />Interruptible supply agreements may have economic impacts on individuals and <br />on the local community. In some cases (e,g, the MWDlDudley Ridge example), the <br /> <br />Hydrosphere Resource Consultanls <br /> <br />t4 <br />