Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Q.1J <br /> <br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />SarberGL@aol.com <br />Monday, January 19, 2004 7:14 PM <br />swsr (Statewide Water Supply Initiative) <br />Arkansas Supply Options <br /> <br />I have reviewed the table provided at the Arkansas Basin BRT #2 with respect <br />to the E1 Paso County Water Report. I suggest you identify Alternative lA as <br />a tier 2 with the following comments: "2,551 af/year from a satellite well <br />field with one-half of future demand from re-use. Applies to Northern El Paso <br />County only." I suggest you identify Alternative 4A as tier 2 with the <br />following comments: "Approximately 2,500 af of supply is available via exchange/reuse <br />from upper Monument Creek and its tributary. Availability of this water <br />depends on an expansion of a transit loss model which has been partially funded <br />through a CWCB grant to EPeW A." All other supply alternatives in the El Paso <br />County Report should be considered tier 3. Finally, I would note that <br />Alternatives 5A-C anticipate supplying 14,500 plus citizens currently on individual <br />wells in a non-renewing source of supply. I suggest you add demand for <br />approximately 20,000 people or more (use growth data) to the supply requirement on or <br />before 2030 in the expectation that the non-renewing resource is indeed <br />non-renewing. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Gary Barber <br />719-598-0230. <br /> <br />1 <br />