Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #4 <br />Meeting Summary <br />recreation alternatives, completed the analysis of supply, evaluated conservation savings, and <br />have been working on report preparation. Rick also requested BRT feedback on the desired <br />message the basin would like SWSI to communicate to the Legislature, the overall value of the <br />SWSI process, what has been answered, what has not, and requested input on moving forward. <br />Final Gap Analysis <br />Kelly DiNatale presented the final gap analysis numbers for the Arkansas Basin and how the <br />gaps were determined using the demand revisions. Kelly also reviewed the statewide demand <br />figures, including an estimate of the remaining gross demand shortfall, or gap. The general <br />locations of the remaining gap for each basin were also presented, as well as the additional <br />uncertainty with the planned projects and processes going forward. Where applicable for each <br />basin, provider level data were obtained and these were discussed along with general supply <br />options. The estimated gross demand shortfall was reviewed on a subbasin level for the <br />Arkansas Basin, along with more specific information on the areas of gap occurrence and <br />additional applicable details. Demand projection information developed under SWSI will be <br />posted to the SWSI web site (www.cwcb.state.co.us). <br />Agricultural demands, potential changes in irrigated acres for each of the eight basins and the <br />Arkansas Basin specifically, and locations of agricultural shortages were also presented by <br />Kelly. <br />Feedback from the BRT members on the gap analysis material follows in a question and answer <br />format. <br />^ There has been some conservation savings as a result of drought. Some believe that will <br />persist into the future. <br />^ How much conservation is built into future 2030 demand? <br />- Answer: Approximately 6percent <br />^ How has gap analysis changed since July CWCB meeting? <br />- Answer: Somewhat, based on further follow-up with water providers. <br />^ Clarify the groundwater use in El Paso County and how it is applied to gap. <br />^ How are we noting when providers have additional capacity? <br />- Answer: We are not. <br />^ Water providers' excess supplies should be used to address gap. <br />^ Additional supplies are not being utilized. <br />^ Do these alternatives include interruptible supplies? <br />- Answer: No. <br />^ May want to look at interim transactions between now and 2030 where water supply is <br />plentiful. <br />^ Still not accounting for extra supply in the gap analysis. <br />^ Missed provider data for Boone, Avondale, Beulah, Rye, Gardner, La Veta, Colorado City, <br />and Aguilar. <br />^ Can we assume that groundwater is not physically available in El Paso County? <br />- Answer: It is physically available, but not sustainable. <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #4 Summary.doc 11/29/2004 <br />