Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2 <br />Meeting Summary <br />The group was encouraged to first try the exercise, then adjust percentages after that if they <br />felt the need to do so. <br />Preliminary List of Proj ect Options and Tiering <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 seelcing 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 />John Rehring presented a preliminary draft list of project options, as identified by BRT members <br />and project advisors, for meeting water needs in the basin. These options will be cataloged, then <br />"packaged together" into alternatives for meeting the basin's needs. The project °tiering" <br />definitions were reviewed, with Tier 1 projects being those that are identified by the project <br />sponsor(s) as being on a direct path toward implementation. Tier 2 and 3 projects are further <br />from implementation, either based on their status (planning or conceptual level identification of <br />a water management solution) or on the basis of issues associated with their implementation <br />(e.g., significant disagreement from within the BRT on whether/how to proceed with the <br />option, lack of funding, legal or institutional issues, etc.) <br />Tier 1 options will be documented as meeting a particular need in the basin. For purposes of <br />SWSI, it will be assumed that these options will be in place by the 2030 planning year, 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. Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects <br />will be evaluated in various combinations by packaging them into alternatives for consideration <br />and discussion by the BRT. The preliminary draft list discussed by the BRT members at the <br />meeting is appended to this meeting summary. <br />Feedback from the BRT members follows. <br />^ Many Arkansas Basin projects are "already on the drawing board," but the projects currently <br />"on the table" don't address all needs <br />^ The Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System analysis included many <br />options/alternatives and the pipeline is likely to go forward. The project and its components <br />are currently undergoing NEPA analysis. Discussion about whether this would best be <br />characterized as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 project ensued. Rick Brown noted that in cases such as this, <br />SWSI will defer to project sponsors' judgment. Phil Tollefson indicated that it should be Tier <br />1, recognizing that some implementation issues still exist. <br />^ The El Paso County Water Report includes some Tier 2 and some Tier 3 options <br />^ The list should include a°category° called agricultural transfers <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/7/2004 <br />