Laserfiche WebLink
<br />North Platte Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />. How might an interruptible supply option work with the decree? <br />Answer: Decree is based on irrigated acreage, so changes in use, as long as they are <br />within the principles of the decree, might be possible. <br />Decree is held to 60,000 AF of storage total over 10-year average and limits trans-basin <br />diversions, so may not be feasible. <br />. Would it be possible to operate North Platte to improve downstate environmental issues to <br />free up water in South Platte? <br />Answer: Anything is possible, but implementing a large project on the North Platte <br />would have significant issues. <br />. How do you convert agriculture into municipal use? <br />Answer: Typically the consumptive use portion of the agriculture water right is <br />transferred; not the gross diversions to ensure no injury to downstream rights. <br />. In North Platte irrigation and storage rights are restricted by decree to times of year. Is South <br />Platte similar? <br />Answer: South Platte Compact much different. <br />. It was pointed out that the CWCB instream flow right may extend too far down on Grizzly <br />Creek; check map for accuracy. <br /> <br />Preliminary List of Project Options and Tiering <br /> <br />There is a significant amount of information and studies available on water projects and <br />potential water management options in each basin. The SWSI team is seeking to identify and <br />document specific information and projects where available, with input from the BRT members <br />and the Basin Advisors. Since one of SWSI's overarching principles is to not interfere with local <br />water planning initiatives, we are especially interested in learning about existing water supply <br />options/projects and existing planning efforts, and documenting how these will be applied to <br />future water needs (i.e., applied to any "gap" between projected demands and supplies). SWSI <br />also anticipates that "gaps" may exist even after existing efforts are implemented, and that <br />additional water supply options may need to be developed. <br /> <br />Sue Morea presented a preliminary draft list of project options, as identified by BRT members <br />and project proponents, for meeting water needs in the basin. These options will be cataloged, <br />then "packaged together" into alternatives for meeting the basin's needs. The project "tiering" <br />definitions presented at the last BRT meeting were reviewed. Based on feedback obtained from <br />roundtable participants in this and other basins, the tiering definitions will likely be modified <br />from the previous Tier 1/2/3 definitions toward solutions that will be implemented in the near- <br />, mid-, and long-term. Near-term solutions (previously Tier 1) are those that are identified by <br />the project sponsor as a solution that is moving forward. This type of a solution could be a <br />specific project, or the anticipated outcome of an ongoing planning process. <br /> <br />Near-term options will be documented as meeting a particular need in the basin. For purposes <br />of SWSI, it will be assumed that these options will be in place some time prior to 2030, and the <br />resulting effects (e.g., delivery of water to the project beneficiaries) will be applied to the <br />projected "gap," if any, between future basin supplies and demands. Mid- and long-term <br />options will be evaluated in various combinations by packaging them into alternatives for <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />N Platte BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/16/2004 <br />