Ark BRT Water Transfers Committee Work Summary

Home Browse Search

strategies which could be incorporated in demonstration projects and/or models that would showcase the necessary elements of "how to get it right when you transfer water." The committee had the idea that such a think tank should be proposed to the roundtable as a whole, so that the roundtable could decide where it might want to go with the idea. One possibility was that the roundtable might ask for the involvement of CWCB/IBCC in forming the think tank, and/or funding from CWCB/IBCC to support such a think tank. At the June meeting, the committee envisioned this think tank as being made up of "experts" from not only agency and city specialists and other researchers, but also from farmers whose knowledge and experience are critical to understanding the issues. It was pointed out that the first new Colorado water bank was developed without considering the views of the practitioners who would be using the bank or others who could have offered insights to increase its chances of success. An additional point was made that traditionally, the agriculture community responds to demonstration projects to help them understand the needs for their own applications before adopting an approach or strategy. The committee acknowledged a significant barrier: how to engage agency and city people in a way that allows freedom to think and dialogue creatively, not held back by institutional constraints or goals. How to format the think tank process in order to accomplish this was not determined. Several members of the committee emphasized that the transfer of water from agriculture to urban uses is only one factor in the difficulty rural communities are facing in remaining viable. Indeed, one member asserts that water is leaving agriculture because agriculture is not viable, not the other way around. The committee feels it is important for the think tank to include rural economic development specialists who can help it address the broader issue. The committee worked to formulate a proposal to present to the full roundtable, but failed to complete the proposal before the close of the meeting. The chairman assigned a taskforce (Wayne Vanderschuere, Dennis Smith, Virgil Cochran, Mark Pipher, and John Wiener) to work with the facilitator to finetune the wording of the proposal and bring it to the full committee to be discussed at its July meeting. (Later, one member of the task force expressed a strong concern that the think tank be directed to consider not just the ag to urban transfer issues, but the issue of "from what point on the river water is taken when it is transferred." He made the argument that where the water is taken has a significant effect on water quality "equity" and must be considered.) Task Force Think Tank Proposal The task force worked through wording developed by the facilitator to come up with an iteration they accepted as the draft to be presented to the committee on July 11 (Exhibit J.) Discussing the draft proposal at their July 11 meeting, the committee had two distinct preferences which were not completely resolved. One was for the "think tank" to be made up only of committee members with outside experts called in as needed. The other preference was for outside experts to be included as an integral part of the think Arkansas Basin Roundtable Water Transfers Committee-Work Summary Page 3 of 4