WSP06745 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

weeks, The main transaction costs are limited to the effort in completing and filing the transfer applica- tion the title search (usually a cost of a few to several hundred dollars) and the transfer fee, all-in-all rela- tively inexpensive. Seasonal water transfers of C-BT allotments are even less complicated. A seasonal transfer can be accomplished by mailing a postcard that identifies the allotment owner and temporary water user, The price water allotment owners charge for a single seasonal transfer is typically just the NCWCD assessment cost for the allotment. It is common for municipalities and developers to rent their C-BT water back to agricul- ture on a seasonal basis until needed to meet drought demand or for urban growth. There are important differences in the transfer of C-BT and other water rights. Transfer of other native (within basin of origin) water rights in Colorado (and most other states) requires that the transfer will have no adverse effect on senior or junior owners of other water rights. One result of this requirement is that only the historical amount of water consumptively used can be transferred, Differences between water right owners and other users about the amount of water that was consumptively used (and thus return flow), the impacts from a change in the location of use, and conversion of seasonal irrigation water use to year-round municipal water use (and associated return flow) significantly increase the time and cost to accomplish other water right transfers. Another important and unique feature that distin- guishes C-BT transfers from almost all other water right transfers that occur under traditional interpre- tation of prior appropriation law is that conserved (saved) water can be bought and sold. That is, if a farmer improves application efficiency and can pro- duce a crop with less water, the saved portion of that water can be transferred to another uSe. In most other jurisdictions with prior appropriation water Jaw, conserved water cannot be separately transferred from the original water right to another location or use, These restrictions are largely the result of estab- lished beneficial use quantities for an activity (e,g, three acre feet per acre; if less is used then that water was not being put to a beneficial use and no longer meets the requirements of the water right, therefore the right to use the conserved water reverts back to the state) and to maintain (protect) return flows for downstream appropriators, Although restrictions on the transfer of conserved water in other areas do not encourage improvement in water use efficiency, they are considered an important and established element of prior appropriation law, The ability to transfer con- served (or supplemental) water is believed to be a contributing factor in the development and activity of the C,BT market. WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN . --, Michelsen MARKET ACTIVITY Information about the number of transactions (market activity), quantity of water transferred per transaction and types of sellers and buyers is impor- tant for understanding the structure and develop- ment of a water market, In many other areas this type of information on water right transfers, when it exists, is difficult to obtain or reconstruct through investigation, However, some of this information for the C-BT market can be found or constructed by care- fully reviewing the minutes of each of the NCWCD Board of Directors monthly meetings, All transactions within the NCWCD have to be approved by the Board of Directors. Transfer applica- tions are reviewed every month during Board meet- ings, and all approvals are recorded in the minutes of these meetings, Although transfer price is undisclosed to the Board, every single transaction is reported, with the names of the applicants, the type of contract (which refers to the type of use), the quantity of water involved and the legal description of the land on which water is to be applied (irrigation only), The NCWCD monthly minutes from 1970 through 1993 were examined to gather information about each permanent C-BT water allotment transaction during this period, Transaction data were categorized and numerically coded for quantitative analysis by type of seller and buyer, type of contract, and type of water use prior to and aller the transfer (further detail can be found in Person and Michelsen, 1994), Transac- tions involving on ly a change in location of use for the same entity were excluded, Transfer applicant types were categorized as: (1) individuals, farms, ranches, farm and cattle companies; (2) irrigation companies; (3) municipalities or water districts; (4) industries; (5) developers; (6) banks and insurance companies; (7) investment companies; (8) churches; and (9) other, Classification of water right user categories is based on the names of applicants and type of con- tracts (stating use) that were reported in the minutes. In some cases this required substantial interpretation or judgement calls (invaluable assistance was provid- ed by Marilyn Conley, NCWCD), For example, a man- ufacturing company might hold water under an irrigation contract because it owns farming land, and a corporate contract may be used for irrigation by an irrigation company, Finally, knowing the former and the new use for each contract transferred provided a means to classify the transactions as: (1) Agriculture to Agriculture; (2) Agriculture to Domestic; (3) Agrj, culture to Industry; (4) Domestic to AgTiculture; (5) Domestic to Domestic; (6) Domestic to Industry; (7) Industry to Agriculture; (8) Industry to Domestic; and (9) Industry to Industry 978