Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_2_Summary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2 Meeting Summary . There is a need to develop a consistent approach on Basin of Origin vs. Basin of Use; for example, some upper watershed projects that export to the South Platte basin should be acknowledged in this list somehow, particularly if they are Tier 1 . Conservation easements should be Tier 1 or 2 . Well augmentation should be Tier 1 or 2 . Interruptible supply for agriculture should be Tier 1 or 2 . Farmers need to be viable in wet years . Rehabilitation of existing facilities should be included . Upper Arkansas option should be titled "Augmentation" instead of "Well Augmentation" - Terry Scanga provided additional written input on the details of this option Demand Proj ections The preliminary results of demand projections, both statewide and specific to the Arkansas River basin and its counties, were presented by Kelly DiNatale. Kelly also briefly reviewed the methodology used to develop municipal and industrial (M&I), agricultural, and environmental and recreational water demands for the 2030 planning year. Demand projection information developed under SWSI will be posted to the SWSI web site (www.cwcb.state.co.us). Feedback from the BRT members follows. . Should consider other approaches for statutory flow requirement for environmental/ recreational flows - R2 cross vs. others. It was noted that alternatives could be crafted to incorporate other methods and higher flows and that these suggestions/ alternatives should come from BRT members. . More than 8,000 miles of stream in the state have instream flows using R2 cross. It was noted that stream flows also occur via calls or flow requirements to meet senior water rights. . No instream flows exist on mainstem Arkansas . Look at water court stipulations as part of this analysis - e.g., Rocky Ford/ Aurora transfers . Should include Lamar/Prowers County in provider database; SWSI team will do so if the municipal providers respond to the survey that was sent out previously . Note differences in agricultural gross diversion-to-consumptive use ratio between basins - the difference between the two may be "someone else's water" as diversions in excess of consumptive use can make up return flows to the stream. . Otero County's per capita use rate at 460 gallons/ day may be due to industrial use (pickling plant) . Elbert County per capita use appears low; this may be due to the use of groundwater and minimal industrial demand in the area . Per capita numbers are based on 2000 use (which was approximately an average water demand year for most of Colorado) . The projected increase in M&I demand is not necessarily a "gap" - SWSI team will compare available supply, as identified by water providers, to these numbers to identify gap, if any . May need an additional 10,000 AFY to replace existing supply as EI Paso County wells dry up - this is "everyone's problem" because of economic contributions of this area CDIVI 5 Arkansas BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/7/2004