Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #4 <br />Meeting Summary <br />interest among BRT members. These options will be applied to the remaining gap, but are <br />limited to in-basin options. <br />The high, low and average results for the objective weighting in the Arkansas Basin was <br />presented, as well as the relative occurrence of each option being among the top 5 most <br />preferred choice for each basin roundtable member. <br />Rick Brown reviewed the alternatives development in regards to environmental and <br />recreational uses, M&I and SS-I needs, and agricultural needs. <br />Feedback from the BRT members on the development of alternatives follows. <br />^ Avoid recommendations that "expand" government in Colorado. <br />^ Need to identify the impacts associated with agricultural transfers, economic and social, and <br />third party. <br />^ Highlight differences between permanent and interruptible agricultural transfers. <br />^ Concern that agricultural transfers that are °temporary° could become permanent. <br />^ Agriculture conservation; legislature has looked at salvaging water via conservation but its <br />implementation was not viable. We did it under current law. Not very viable in light of <br />Arkansas Compact. <br />^ Non-native phreatophytes should do well as an alternative because it meets several <br />objectives. <br />^ Why didn't control of non-native phreatophytes perform well in the Arkansas? <br />^ There may be technical issues with how much water is saved when phreatophytes are <br />changed from native to non-native. <br />^ Environmental and recreational interests are not consumptive. It is not as easy as a 3:1 cost <br />ratio. <br />^ We should look at environmental and recreational interest as an investment. <br />^ Flow management agreement on Arkansas is a"model." <br />^ Only possible on certain portions of river, to have flow agreements in place. <br />^ Do not like concept of dams for environment, could designate a"pool" of water in existing <br />projects. <br />^ Should be proactive on projects, not just after the fact, i.e., mitigation. <br />^ Coalitions can be formed. <br />^ Beneficiaries of environment and recreation should pay for the projects that benefit them. <br />^ SWSI needs to go somewhere other than courtroom to have these conversations. <br />^ SWSI needs to be the place to continue the dialogue. <br />^ Rivers to Life book looking at what do rivers need, agriculture, municipal. <br />^ The problem with paying for recreation and environment is that it's difficult to get legislation <br />passed that can tax these uses. <br />- Public should ~ya for public use. <br />- Look at Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area fees. <br />- Southeastern role, BOR role. <br />- Arkansas has a head start. <br />^ Fry-Ark is authorized for fishing and recreation, so taxpayers already pay. <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #4 Summary.doc 11/29/2004 <br />