Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />0'241 <br /> <br />9d. Questionable Irri~ation Benefits <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"There is also another practice a.nd blessed with case law, that <br /> <br /> <br />water not diverted and applied to the lands in the area of the respective <br /> <br /> <br />ditch system is the property in the priority system of the next junior <br />a.ppropriator in point of time. If this rule is followed, there would <br />not be water available to the Narrows Project." <br />As for arguments that Narrows would benefit downstream lands, the <br />need for this is minimal. The land below the Narrows site is rich in <br />alluvium, and this means that a water table lies relatively close to the <br />surface. Thus, most of the needs downstream are or can be fulfilled by <br />more efficient pumping systems rather than by irrigation ditches. <br />The Bureau estimates that water from the Narrows Project could be <br />supplied to agriculture for an "at the farm" cost of $11.42 per acre foot. <br />Further, Plan Report Narrows Unit 1973 states that "Pick_Sloan" privilege <br />would be used to subsidize the irrigation portion of the Narrows Project <br />in the amount of $1,853,000 from revenues derived from power generating <br />projects. <br />Nei ther does the Narrows Project provide "after bay" storage for <br />waters which could, through exchange, provide potable water for the front <br />range cities of Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins and Greeley in <br />the amount of 1,400 second feet daily. Although officials of these cities <br />have expressed an interest and need for channel storage that would provide <br />this service, the Bureau mentions that "there was no intent to serve the <br /> <br /> <br />front range cities in the formation of the Narrows Unit proposal", and <br /> <br /> <br />refuse to consider upstream storage that would provide this service. <br /> <br />. <br />