Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2 Meeting Summary . Two BRT members reported trouble opening e-mailed attachments (PDF format); another member has not been accessing emails . BRT members feel it is okay to reference documents if they're publicly accessible . BRT members expressed approval to share their individual comments publicly Water Management Objectives Sue Morea presented the revised list of water management objectives and subobjectives, based on comments and feedback obtained from the first round of BRT meetings around the state and from the CWCB Board meeting in November 2003. Sue explained how the original list of objectives was modified based on this input. The SWSI team found through this process that there was significant consistency from basin to basin in the types of objectives identified, though there are significant differences from person to person and basin to basin in the relative importance of each of the objectives to the BRT members. The SWSI process is designed to identify and track the relative importance or "preference" each BRT member places on each water management objective. Once water management alternatives are developed, each BRT member will be able to see how well an alternative meets their individual preferences and the BRT as a whole can see which alternatives have elements that can be largely agreed upon. Paul Brown presented an overview of how the objectives will be weighted by individual BRT members and then used in the evaluation of alternatives in later phases of SWSI. An example weighting form for the objectives and subobjectives was reviewed. It was stressed that the "numeric" alternative evaluation process in SWSI is intended to provide information on individual preferences, but that the numeric results serve as a starting point for BRT discussion, rather than determining the final disposition of an alternative. Later BRT meetings will focus on discussion of the alternatives based on these results. The process is not one of "majority rules" or a "vote," rather it is a facilitated discussion that seeks common ground between diverse interests. Feedback from the BRT members on the objectives and subobjectives is summarized below. . One member asked why municipal and industrial (M&I) demands were split out as a separate objective from agricultural demands. Separating these objectives will illustrate how well an alternative performs in meeting one or both of the demands. This was done based on feedback from BRTs. The BRT member expressed concern that meeting M&I needs would be weighted high by all participants, possibly at the expense of other objectives. . Another BRT member noted that drinking water is a "given" priority for everyone . The group discussed objective weighting, noting that one could weight the objectives from a statewide, local-only, or interest-based point of view. The roundtable is intended to comprise diverse interests, including those of the BRT members and those they represent. The weighting should reflect BRT members' priorities for meeting the water needs of the basin; CWCB Board members will be looking at statewide issues in later phases of SWSI. . Another BRT member asked whether the weighting could be done by simply applying percentages to objectives rather than going through the "forced-pair comparison" exercise. CDIVI 3 Arkansas BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/7/2004