Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />2201 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />impacts on third parties who suffer economic loss from the loss of <br />agricultural production, e.g. farm labOr! r:;, l~:d agribusinesses which <br />normally sell supplies to the farmer or process or transport the farmer's <br />crops. <br />added transaction costs and expenses of the ditch company <br /> <br />Alternative 9: Water Supply Recycling <br /> <br />Municipal use of water supplies with subsequent use by agricultural users is a common <br />occurrence within Colorado. <br /> <br />Water supply recycling and exchange plans in the Arkansas River Basin are presently <br />occurring now with the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Pueblo. The study will <br />evaluate the demand for water supply exchange plans in future years, the possibility of <br />water supply exchange plans on a smaller scale for the cities of Rocky Ford, La Junta, <br />Lamar and other communities within the lower Arkansas Valley, limiting factors such as <br />water quality impacts of water recycling, proper treatment facilities, etc. <br /> <br />Alternative 10: Combination of Alternatives <br /> <br />Upon completion of our study of the nine alternatives set forth previously we will look at <br />other opportunities that may be available including combinations of the above alternatives. <br />Alternatives that will not be considered in this study include: <br /> <br />. area of origin protection legislation whereby new statutes control and <br />regulate the transfer of water and/or water rights <br /> <br />. Task Force II concept whereby a quasi-govenunental entity participates in the <br />water market and administers alternative water transfer methods. <br /> <br />Phase r Reporting <br /> <br />After the completion of Task 4 in which at least nine alternatives to traditional water rights <br />transfers the results and recommendations will be presented to the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board, Ft. Lyon Canal Company, the Lower Arkansas Commission and Task <br />Force II for review and comment. <br /> <br />The most promising of these alternatives will be analyzed using the same process and <br />parameters as previously described, but in more detail in Phase II design phase of this <br />project. <br /> <br />15 <br />