Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br />',' <br /> <br />,~. <br /> <br />~ ~ r, ., 0 4 <br />uc':) 1/ -..1 ". <br /> <br />Some commenters felt that the District should act to protect the interests of <br />agricultural water users in connection with interruptible supply contracts, through active <br />participation in negotiation of agreements or provision of support to potential sellers. <br />There was also support expressed for adoption by the District of policy measures <br />designed to protect sellers and/or non-parties to the agreements. <br /> <br />Support for investigating interruptible supply contracts as a supply alternative <br /> <br />Despite a fairly high level of anxiety about the impacts and operation of <br />interruptible supply contracts, commenters on the whole seem to support investigating <br />these arrangements as a supply alternative within the district. This was true even of <br />some commenters who currently believe that interruptible arrangements will be <br />detrimental to the,m or to agricultural water users as a group. <br /> <br />This view is exemplified by agricultural users who responded to the summer 1995 <br />survey. Of twenty-eight agricultural respondents answering a question as to whether <br />interruptible supply contracts would have positive effects on farmers, fifteen said no, <br />eight said yes, and five didn't know.s Of twenty-seven giving an opinion as to whether <br />these arrangements would have negative effects on farmers, nineteen said yes, four said <br />no, and four didn't know. In other words, a clear majority felt there would be negative <br />effects and only a minority saw positive effects. Yet, when asked whether the district <br />should investigate interruptible supply arrangements as a supply alternative, the <br />respondents were more evenly divided, with nine supporting further investigation, eleven <br />opposing it, and eight unsure. <br /> <br />Similarly, the Windy Gap participants as a group have been very supportive of this <br />study and of investigating the use of interruptible supply contracts, although some of <br />them have expressed reservations as to whether these arrangements actually will prove to <br />be a viable alternative for municipal dry-year supplies. <br /> <br />Agricultural users who oppose the contracts but support consideration of the <br />concept gave a number of reasons for the latter position. For example, one respondent <br />stated that, although he views the arrangements as a "dangerous option", it is too early to <br />judge whether the .benefits outweigh the dangers. Other respondents, seeing population <br />growth and transfer of water from agricultural to municipal use as inevitable, feel that <br />agricultural users should consider all options that could allow them to benefit from such <br />transfers. <br /> <br />Among municipal and industrial commenters, the level of support for investigating <br />interruptible supply contracts as a supply alternative was high. Some representatives of <br />these groups expressed skepticism as to whether interruptible arrangements could <br />appropriately be used to meet their own supply needs, but all appeared to believe that <br /> <br />5 One respondent checked both "no" and "don't know". That response is counted <br />here in the "don't know" category. <br /> <br />15 <br />