AppendixB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #3 Meeting Summary ^ The group discussed whether municipalities were using a worst case or best case scenario for yields from exchanges. ^ Another participant noted that the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project allocation numbers did not appear correct. The group discussed how the 2000 value includes carry over allocations, and that that value did not reflect all West Slope water diverted in 2000, but that a significant amount of east slope water was available. It was concluded that the numbers as shown on the graph were correct. Water Supply Alternatives Overview Sue Morea described how the water supply alternatives would be developed for the basin. She reminded the group that the alternatives developed during SWSI should be considered at a reconnaissance level and are not a substitute for local planning. Based on input from BRT's around the state, the original tiering concept has been redefined to represent identified projects and processes (formerly "Tier 1" or "short-term") and unidentified projects and processes (formerly "Tiers 2 and 3" or "mid- and long-term"). Sue explained that the water supply options provided by the roundtable and additional options developed by the SWSI team will be combined to create alternatives which will be organized initially into four themes: demand management, infrastructure, agricultural transfers, and environmental/recreational. Performance Measures Sue Morea presented an overview of the performance measures that will be used to measure how effective the water supply alternatives are in achieving the water management objectives that were developed by the Basin Roundtable. (See BRT #2 Summary for more information on Water Management Objectives.) Feedback from the BRT members follows. ^ Is there a different set of criteria for similar alternatives that were submitted by non-M&I members? SWSI team members clarified that there is a single list of objectives and performance measures. ^ One suggestion was that the State Legislature should provide additional time after November 2004 to discuss inter-basin transfers. ^ SWSI team members clarified that the SWSI team will conduct the scoring of all the alternatives including recreational and environmental alternatives using the individual preferences of each BRT member. ^ Discussion of whether fishing and kayaking should be evaluated as a performance measure concluded that they should not. ^ A BOR study indicating that kayakers have different flow desires than rafting users was noted. ^ One participant questioned why in-stream flow was measured differently than other performance measures and that reduction in flow should not get a positive score. ^ It was noted that winter flows are not as valuable to rafting as other months, so that should be taken into account in the performance measures. ^ One participant questioned why there are three to five performance measures for Recreation/Environment compared to one for M&I reliability. SWSI team members noted ~~ Arkansas BRT Mtg #3 Summary_Final 7-&04.doc 7/9/2004