Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative Agricultural Transfers Technical Roundtable Meeting #1 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />improving system reliability. Comments and questions on the overview of the white paper <br />included: <br /> <br />. Cost of water development and the value of agricultural water also affect the desirability to <br />transfer Agricultural water to M&I. <br />. Is this TRT limited to alternatives presented in the White Paper? <br />- Answer: No, this is a starting place for discussion. <br />. In the Lower Arkansas there is a secondary market in conservation easements and the tax <br />credits are in different context - this issues needs to be added as a sub-bullet to question 3 <br />for tax credits/ easements <br />. Water supply generated from an alternative agricultural transfer could be used as part of a <br />compact call and this should be noted as a potential benefit. <br />. Another benefit that should be noted is that supplies from alternative agricultural transfers <br />can be use as a recharge supply when supply is plentiful. <br />. Under the category Legal/Water Rights - item 3 is too narrow and should be combined with <br />item 1. <br />. It was noted that some ditches with senior water rights in the state use water without <br />producing any crops. <br />. An alternative agricultural transfer would give senior water right holders the opportunity to <br />fallow their least productive land. <br />. Poorer quality land may not necessarily be eligible for dry because of the cost factor for <br />getting water from the non productive areas and the non productive areas may have the <br />lowest historic consumptive use. <br />. Pumping costs may need to be accounted for when addressing fallowing as an option. <br />. A geographic selection process is needed to identify areas that are candidate for rotating <br />fallowing. <br />. For Technical item 1 in the white paper, we need to answer what is the place of use? <br />. From a water quality perspective to decreased flows from returns have impact on total <br />maximum daily loads (TMDLs)? <br />. For the Institution/Political item 4 is this question asking beyond injury of water rights? <br />- Answer: This is political more than legal issue. <br />. During dry years, a rotating fallowing program could be used to provide flows for the <br />environment. <br />. Very few farmers are laid off because of drought. <br />. The language in the white paper needs to be reviewed - if a fallowing program is <br />implemented farming doesn't stop just some areas are not irrigated on a given farm. <br />. Under Political/Institution items 7 & 8 - these questions did not assume arrangements would <br />be permanent? <br />- Answer: That was the question, do rotating fallowing agreements need to be permanent. <br />. Will alternative agricultural transfers be considered in the approach to the gap. <br />- Answer: Yes, and as part of the 80 percent solution acquisition of agricultural lands for <br />permanent dry up was included as some local providers identified projects and processes. <br />. Analysis needs to consider base load needs vs. dry year needs. <br />. Often lands with junior water right could see an increase in supply by acquireing water from <br />fallowing of lands. <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />S:\SWSI 2\Meetings\Technical Roundtable\TRT Meeting - Specific\Alternative Ag Transfers\summary\Alt Ag Tran TRT #1 Summary final.doc <br />