Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1\_' <br /> <br />. ~. . <br /> <br />1'\.i:':i.'.~17Q3 <br />lJ ......- j .; ...;I <br /> <br />than April, when the water borrowed by Windy Gap would have to be repaid. It appears <br />that this is an acceptable date for potential sellers. <br /> <br />Ditch operations and changes in water flow patterns <br /> <br />One of the issues most frequently raised in discussions with agricultural users was <br />the effect of water transfers under interruptible supply arrangements on water flow <br />patterns and other water users. This concern was raised most frequently in the context <br />of ditch operations. <br /> <br />Worried that they would be adversely affected by a transfer by another water user <br />-- a transfer for which they themselves would not be compensated -- many commenters <br />requested that ditch company shareholders or boards of directors be given a role in <br />approving interruptible supply arrangements involving any individual shareholder. While <br />some commenters opposed this because it would interfere with exercise of private <br />property rights, the majority view seemed to be that there should be some role for the <br />ditch company as a whole to participate and protect the rights of other users. <br /> <br />Third-party impacts <br /> <br />Although many commenters were anxious regarding impacts of interruptible <br />supply transfers on other water users, there was little concern expressed regarding other <br />types of third-party impacts. There were few comments regarding impacts on farm <br />laborers, suppliers or service providers as a result of reduced operations. There was <br />some concern that transfers could depress farm production so as to cause an increase in <br />farm prices, with a resulting impact on all food purchasers. <br /> <br />Concerns were expressed about harm to water users who are not the owners of <br />the C-BT units they use in their operations. For example, a tenant farmer who leases <br />both land and water could be left without the water supply if the unit-holder chose to <br />enter into an interruptible supply contract, but the compensation paid under the contract <br />would go to the owner of the units rather than to the tenant farmer who actually uses <br />them. Similarly, those who depend on water obtained through the annual rental market <br />in the district are apprehensive that their source of supply may disappear if water is <br />optioned under interruptible arrangements. <br /> <br />Agricultural concerns <br /> <br />Municipal'representatives expressed a great deal of support for the agricultural <br />community and a desire to maintain a strong agricultural sector in northern Colorado. <br />However, considerable anxiety regarding municipalities, in the context of water transfers, <br />was evident in the comments of many agricultural water users. Many commenters <br />oppose any type of transfer to municipal use, even a temporary or occasional shift, <br />because they see it as part of a general trend to move water out of agriculture and <br />thereby weaken the agricultural community, or because they view it as the precursor to <br />more widespread reallocation of water. <br /> <br />13 <br />