Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />From: Ray Wright [h2oguy@fone.net] <br />Sent: Thursday, December 11,2003 5:07 PM <br />To: SWSI (Statewide Water Supply Initiatlve) <br />Subject: Rio Grande BTF <br /> <br />Task 1- New projects,etc. <br />I am unsure of what has been submitted so I may be repetitive. <br />1. Oversize the capacity of existing irrigation ditches and dedicate large recharge areas to take advantage of <br />flood fiows and flows available when Elephant Butte Reservoir is spilling4 <br />2. Evaluate the legal and technical challenges of allowing the State to store Compact curtailments in existing <br />storage for timely release to the downstream states, minimizing the chance of overdeliveries of Compact water. <br />3.Establish groundwater management subdistricts to manage consumption wh~le maxim~zing aquifer sustainable <br />y~eld. <br />4. Facilitate the movement of surface waters to alternate points of diverston so as to effectively manage aquifer <br />rech arge. <br />5. Work to improve the channels of the rivers to more effectively meet the needs of all stakeholder groups. <br /> <br />Task 2- Review objectives and subobjectives <br /> <br />I notice in reviewing the list of objectives and subs that it is a fair representatron of what we said at our BTF <br />meeting. It wUI be important to highlight to members that their desires and priorities are not being violated by the <br />lumping process, but are rather just a step below some of the basin concerns in their degree of specificity. I <br />particularly note on Objective 1 that our comments in the RlO Grande do not conflict with the subobjectives, but <br />are rather a How To Ust of what needs to occur in order that the objective might be real. Other comments: <br />Objective 2- A tricky subject- The subobjective of minimizing non-beneficial consumption is a questfon of what <br />that is. To some it might be cottonwoods, to others, bluegrass. Paving certainly minimizes that nonbeneficial <br />consumption, but might be considered to have a negative environmental jmpact. Needs further discussion. <br /> <br />Objective 5- The first subojective. Provide adequate water for recreation when and where needed, is obviously <br />important and, in fact, largely unattainable. f don't have a suggestion for changing it yet, but would like to suggest <br />that our current recreational ftows are largely the result of Compact deliveries (we fish and float on other statels <br />water) and calling downstream water rights. A discussion of the impacts of change cases which result in the <br />upstream movement of a previously calling right might be in order. Another point of discussion would be whether <br />it might be preferable to manipulate where and when recreational flows occurred to maximize usage even if other, <br />lesser recreational needs might suffer. ? <br /> <br />On page 2 of the urban demand section, would it be illustrative during this part of the study to assume a range <br />of per househoJd usage numbers that would show the relative impact of conservation and excessively high <br />usage? <br /> <br />In the Ag demand section I think that it is fmportant that the study, using RGDSS. acknow~edge the limits on <br />groundwater usage which I feel is now occurring in the Rio Grande~ I suspect that a careful look at the numbers <br />may show a current acreage which is not sustainable and will result rn the substantial dewatering of groundwater <br />aquifers. In that case an assumption of stabre acreages would overstate the reality. <br /> <br />I hope these are helpful and will plan to attend the next SWSI Rio Grande BRT meeting. Ray Wright <br /> <br />3/8/2004 <br />