My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AppendixB
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
AppendixB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2010 9:24:17 AM
Creation date
1/10/2008 8:23:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Statewide
Title
SWSI Phase 1 Report - Appendix B
Date
11/15/2004
Author
CWCB
SWSI - Doc Type
Final Report
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #4 <br />Meeting Summary <br />^ 50 percent is optimistic for development of Identified Projects and Processes (IPP). <br />^ For report, 25 to 50 percent uncertainty of IPP is as good as any. <br />^ Develop a summary sheet for identified projects and processes use in basin. <br />^ Have each of these IPPs looked at funding? Fiscal constraints may make uncertainty worse. <br />What lcind of state CWCB involvement is there? <br />^ Water business unpredictable in Colorado. How solid are available supply numbers? If we <br />get 10-15 percent of projects we will be lucky. <br />^ Small providers' unit costs will be very high for storage. <br />^ Small users that are considering the Arkansas conduit may need a firm water right and <br />source of supply for the Arkansas conduit. <br />^ It appears that some of the sources of water supply information may be more thorough than <br />others (small providers generally less thorough). <br />^ Uncertainty may be "uncertain" and it will be hard to know how legislature will use the <br />information and the characterization. <br />^ Rather than quantify the gap between demand and supply and uncertainty, we should <br />identify the issues/obstacles. <br />^ The most important thing for legislature is the obstacles. <br />^ Not comfortable with quantified uncertainty analysis. <br />^ Agricultural gaps aren't shown clearly. Do not see what the needs are in this part of state. <br />^ Why is Arkansas using such a short period of record on average diversions? <br />- Answer: No DSS in Arkansas. <br />^ In the 1999 flood many diversion dams washed out. <br />^ If the entire Ft. Lyons ditch were taken out, that would be 90,000 acres lost. <br />^ In the Upper Arkansas, when an M&I supplier buys water, that also creates opportunity for <br />land development. Seems like double counting of lost irrigated acres. <br />^ Acres lost/changed to urbanized development should be reflected on table headings on <br />irrigated acres. <br />^ Acres lost/changed due to water rights acquisition: this is a loss. <br />^ When land goes from agriculture to urban, it is still irrigated, i.e., lawns. <br />^ Does 48,000 acres on Lower Arkansas include transfers outside the basin? <br />- Answer: Yes. <br />^ Well associations are acquiring agricultural rights and converting that for use on agriculture <br />lands. <br />^ If you are only drying up 9,000 to 48,000 acres, how are you getting 26,000 to 86,000 AF firm <br />yield? <br />- Answer: Reuse component, multiplier effect: M&I users would use 70 percent of <br />effluent. <br />^ Consumptive use can often only be used once. <br />^ Confusion on firm yield; M&I use table needs to be clarified, and estimated potential <br />agricultural transfers shown. <br />^ Need to understand how much agriculture you are drying up -1 acre dry up = 1.5 AF water. <br />Meeting Future Water Needs <br />The strategies for meeting future water needs were discussed by Kelly DiNatale. Kelly <br />reviewed the families of options which include conservation, agricultural transfers, reservoirs, <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #4 Summary.doc 11/29/2004 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.