Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3507 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />productivity; total acres to be fallowed based on annual water <br />demand by buyer or lessee, fallowed land to rotate among <br />voluntary participants. <br /> <br />7, Interruptable Supply <br /> <br />Can a contractual arrangement be used whereby some percent of <br />land is taken out of production during agreed upon events and the <br />saved water moved to non-agricultural water use, <br /> <br />8, Agricultural production interference charge <br /> <br />Can lessee of water pay agricultural producers for discontinuation <br />of crop irrigation (similar to power interference charge) to meet <br />municipal demands for either short or long term. <br /> <br />9, Water Supply Recycling <br /> <br />Can an alternative be developed that would allow a municipal first <br />use with the return of the municipal effluent to original owner for <br />subsequent agricultural use, <br /> <br />10. Combination of above alternatives <br /> <br />d) Alternatives that should not be considered in this study include: <br /> <br />area-of origin protection legislation whereby new statutes control <br />or regulate the transfer of water and/or water rights. <br /> <br />Task Force II Concept whereby a quasi-governmental entity <br />participates in the water market and attempts to implement <br />alternative transfer methods <br /> <br />e) AFfER COMPLETION OF TASK 4, RESULTS ARE TO BE PRESEN1ED <br />TO THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, FT. LYON <br />CANAL CO, THE LOWER ARKANSAS COMMISSION AND TASK <br />FORCE II FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, THE MOST PROMISING <br />ALTERNATIVE(S) WILL BE STUDIED IN DETAIL IN TASK 5 <br /> <br />Phase II <br /> <br />Task 5 - <br />(30%) <br /> <br />Analysis and Conceptual Design <br /> <br />The most promising alternative(s) selected by the Colorado Water <br /> <br />13 <br />