Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary

• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Meeting Summary 2
• Date: 1/7/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2
Meeting Summary

The group was encouraged to first try the exercise, then adjust percentages after that if they
felt the need to do so.

Preliminary List of Project Options and Tiering

There is a significant amount of information and studies available on water projects and
potential water management options in each basin. The SWSI team is seeking to identify and
document specific information and projects where available, with input from the BRT members
and the Basin Advisors. Since one of SWSI's overarching principles is to not interfere with local
water planning initiatives, we are especially interested in learning about existing water supply
options/projects and existing planning efforts, and documenting how these will be applied to
future water needs (i.e., applied to any "gap" between projected demands and supplies). SWSI
also anticipates that "gaps" may exist even after existing efforts are implemented, and that
additional water supply options may need to be developed.

John Rehring presented a preliminary draft list of project options, as identified by BRT members
and project advisors, for meeting water needs in the basin. These options will be cataloged, then
"packaged together" into alternatives for meeting the basin's needs. The project "tiering"
definitions were reviewed, with Tier 1 projects being those that are identified by the project
sponsor(s) as being on a direct path toward implementation. Tier 2 and 3 projects are further
from implementation, either based on their status (planning or conceptual level identification of
a water management solution) or on the basis of issues associated with their implementation
(e.g., significant disagreement from within the BRT on whether/how to proceed with the
option, lack of funding, legal or institutional issues, etc.)

Tier 1 options will be documented as meeting a particular need in the basin. For purposes of
SWSI, it will be assumed that these options will be in place by the 2030 planning year, and the
resulting effects (e.g., delivery of water to the project beneficiaries) will be applied to the
projected "gap," if any, between future basin supplies and demands. Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects
will be evaluated in various combinations by packaging them into alternatives for consideration
and discussion by the BRT. The preliminary draft list discussed by the BRT members at the
meeting is appended to this meeting summary.

Feedback from the BRT members follows.

. Many Arkansas Basin projects are "already on the drawing board," but the projects currently
"on the table" don't address all needs
. The Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System analysis included many
options/ alternatives and the pipeline is likely to go forward. The project and its components
are currently undergoing NEP A analysis. Discussion about whether this would best be
characterized as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 project ensued. Rick Brown noted that in cases such as this,
SWSI will defer to project sponsors' judgment. Phil Tollefson indicated that it should be Tier
I, recognizing that some implementation issues still exist.
. The EI Paso County Water Report includes some Tier 2 and some Tier 3 options
. The list should include a "category" called agricultural transfers

CDIVI

4

Arkansas BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/7/2004