Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., <br /> <br />. <br />219~J <br /> <br />( <br />, <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />requirement for maximum production of major crops grown, compared to the quantity of <br />water historicaJly available w: !lIed to estimates of the potential of land-to-Iand transfer <br />within the system. <br /> <br />Alternative 6: Land FaJlowing <br /> <br />This alternative can best be evaluated by having stockholders react to various scenarios <br />wherein an annual water demand by buyer or lessee is given and several faJlow alternatives <br />are stated. <br /> <br />The elements to be evaluated are: <br /> <br />. Define fallow scenarios: <br /> <br />- remove water from alfalfa for one year (no crop) <br />- remove water from alfalfa for all but one irrigation <br />- plant land used for annual crops with low water use crop (e.g. sudan grass, <br />cover crop) requiring no irrigation. <br /> <br />. Define water aJlocation with each scenario. <br /> <br />. Identify lands for fallowing. Array the variables and determine values. <br /> <br />. Determine levels of acres committed by fallowing by gradiltion of soil type, <br />productivity or other selected variables. <br /> <br />. Identify and quantify positive and negative impacts at each level of fallowed <br />acreage. <br /> <br />Alternative 7: Interruptible Supply <br /> <br />The Ft. Lyon operates in five (5) divisions, with extensive lateral systems. Return flow <br />characteristics vary from location to location. Due to this extent of the Ft. Lyon system, <br />interruptible supply alternatives wiJl consider programs for certain segments of the ditch, <br />rather than the entire system. <br /> <br />Analysis will include: <br /> <br />. interruptible supply lands only near the tail of the ditch <br /> <br /> <br />. interruptible supply only on lands at the ends of laterals <br /> <br />13 <br />