WSP06024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1811 is expected to lease for about $150/af q:,U,/year in dry years, i.e., one year 'in ten. However, shareholders can set any offering prices that they believe will be accepted; I i . There is no permanent transfer of watet from the land within the FLCC system, no I permanent drying up of land, and no pcjrmanent loss of agriculture-dependent jobs in the Valley; . Environmental consequences of water bank operations are neutral and in some cases (e.g., rotational fallowing of farmland; in:creasing river flow to the designated delivery points) are positive; : I . Water bank management will be oblig*ed to protect against losses of return flows and will minimize losses of head in Canals and laterals that would injure other landowners; . Market forces rather than regulation will cause water to be transferred to higher.. i valued uses in the VaIIey, thus increasing economic health of the entire Valley; I . Water will be available to improve municipal water supplies and to accommodate new I or expanding industry desiring to locate in the Valley, and enhance recreation and wildlife needs; . Shareholders will not face new restricti\}ns on potential sale of their water; they may have an enhanced opportunity to sell ~ater to others within the FLCC or lease part of it through the water bank. The watFr bank itself will facilitate sales by making a market for water in the Fort Lyon area. i.e., acting as a central water broker, buying , some water for its own account, and br?kering sales from willing sellers to new users; . Operation of the water bank will stim~late water management improvements in the FLCC system and improve irrigation ~fficiency, which wilI benefit existing irrigators and generate some new jobs. I I . A successful Fort Lyon water bank col/Id subsequently be expanded to cover a larger portion of the Lower Arkansas Valley, and may serve as a model for. other areas of the state. , i Socio-Economic Impacts of Implementing a Water ~ank I A water bank alternative might reduce the most undesirable social and economic consequences that I would result from some of the other alternatives. Th~re will not be a massive transfer of agricultural water, either permanently to users outside the Low~r Arkansas Valley or temporarily in dry years to water utilities outside the Valley or to assure water supply for recreation and wildlife. , / , 7-6