Laserfiche WebLink
<br />alternative; does not accept that we should diminish one area, continue to take <br />apart the South Platte River for the purpose of urban building; fear of what is <br />happening on return flows on river; study will be done in Iliff area, but what <br />impact in Sedgwick County? Will economic study consider the impact on <br />downstream communities? Does not disagree with Jaeger's efforts, but fear <br />the consequences. Does not agree that we need to sacrifice agriculture; cannot <br />support in any way the diminishing of agricultural production. <br /> <br />Phillip Steininger: Agree with Jerke that there are other ways to gain this <br />information; however, benefit of Jaeger's proposal is that it opens up <br />discussion. Need to start developing ideas that may not look on surface <br />acceptable, but that they can open up dialogue. <br /> <br />Jaeger Team member: CA data cannot be impOlted to co. Irrigation studies <br />have been done; municipalities are going to get the water one way or the other <br />because of the pocket book; as far as production: is drying up acres to move <br />water away, like we have seen in AK valley, the way to do it? We have to <br />look at results of change of use. Only water that a crop would have consumed <br />will be available. Need to look at innovative ideas; demand will come. How <br />to keep Counties, like Morgan, Sedgwick, as productive as we can. <br /> <br />Jerke: Was not suggesting that we compare CA with CO but rather how to <br />make things wOlth from a governmental contractual perspective. <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin: Question to ag folks. Please articulate why ag does not want <br />to support this project. When first looked at this idea, it seemed as though <br />agriculturalists would be interested in how we can better manage water as for <br />"optimum" use as opposed to "maximum use." <br /> <br />Gene Manuello: Ag community feel that this is another way to take away ag <br />water: dry up, rotational fallowing... but still this is drying up. . . taking so <br />many acres out of production; based on a bit of fear of another way to come <br />after ag water. For example: if we say that a crop can use only a certain <br />amount of water, will this lead to a limitation on wells? <br />Not against the study: but not for ag supporting it and not for the roundtable to <br />support it because feels that the Roundtables were set up to create more water. <br />For example: on-stream storage projects. Would prefer to see Roundtable <br />work on projects where we are capturing water instead of using water for <br />study projects that could have potential damage to agricultural. <br /> <br />Kathay Rennels: As far as "fear" expressed by Manuello: fear is real: where <br />will the water come from: from ag; that is a given. <br />If$150,000 buys a seat at the table, wOlth patt in dialogue. <br />But I do not feel as though the process is really laid out with the $150,000, <br />and it would be cmcial for someone from ag to "be at the table." <br /> <br />8 <br />