My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00652
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:27:07 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:52:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8449.850
Description
Metro Water Supply Investigation - MWSI
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
8/1/1995
Author
Hydrosphere, HRS
Title
Phase II Interruoptible Supply Summary Report - Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 />MWSI Project <br />Interruptible Supply Framework Repon - DRAFT <br /> <br />August 21. 1995 <br /> <br />8. SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO THE STUDY AREA AND ROLE <br />OF INTERRUPTIBLE SUPPLY WITHIN THE MWSI <br /> <br />8.1 Geographic Considerations <br /> <br />Geographically, most of the available supply lies to the north of the Denver <br />metro area. Interruptible supply contracts involving the use of these supplies in the <br />metro area would involve the development of additional conveyance facilities, which <br />could be costly. <br /> <br />8.2 Agricultural Community Concerns <br /> <br />There is some degree of mistrust on the part of some members of the agricultural <br />community within the study area. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, these arrangements <br />are facilitated when the seller agrees with the overall principle of temporary transfers, <br />especially for municipal purposes. In order to successfully develop a contract, some of <br />this mistrust may need to be reduced and contracts set up so that both parties view the <br />I <br />arrangement as a "win-win". Again, contracts need to be set up so that both parties <br />are comfortable with the arrangement. There are no fIXed rules. <br /> <br />Concerns on the part of some in the agricultural community and reasons for <br />mistrust and skepticism vary, These include: <br /> <br />. Strong beliefs that water should be kept for agricultural use instead of <br />municipal use and that temporary transfers are precursors to permanent <br />transfers; <br /> <br />. Concerns of legal consequences of such transactions, Uncertainty over <br />whether or not an arrangement could result in forfeimre for non-use or in loss <br />of priority; <br /> <br />. Farmers prefer short-term arrangements. Long term arrangements sought by <br />municipalities are sometimes viewed as limiting one's future alternatives; <br /> <br />. Knowing that the agriculmral community has very few resources to evaluate <br />and negotiate potential ISC deals and that municipalities have far greater <br />resources, there is the sense that municipalities would have an unfair <br />advantage; and <br /> <br />. Due to past experiences and perceptions, there is a genuine mistrust of <br />municipalities by some in the agricultural community, <br /> <br />Hydrosphere Resource Consultants <br /> <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.