Laserfiche WebLink
Section 10 <br />Basin-Specific Options <br />There has been some confusion regarding the CWCB <br />damsite inventory. It is emphasized that the locations <br />and sites are very conceptual and may prove infeasible <br />due to a number of factors including unsuitable geology, <br />lack of available water, infeasible filling or conveyance <br />canals, property ownership issues, location of storage <br />not conducive to delivering to demand location, not cost <br />effective, etc. In other words, any data from the inventory <br />should be viewed cautiously. During the Basin <br />Roundtable Technical Meetings, very little feedback was <br />provided, and no positive endorsements of any site were <br />obtained. <br />Nevertheless, the potential damsites can be used in <br />conjunction with demand projections, the location of the <br />demand, water availability, and conditional water rights to <br />explore future water supply opportunities. <br />It should also be noted that many conditional decrees are <br />seeking to develop the same water source or damsite. <br />This competition far exceeds available supplies. <br />10.1.3 Arkansas Basin <br />10.1.3.1 Arkansas Basin Gap Analysis Issues <br />As presented in Section 6, the gap analysis process <br />presented at the Basin Roundtable Technical Meetings <br />provided information on the Identified Projects and <br />Processes that M&I water providers are reasonably <br />confident of implementing to meet 2030 water demands. <br />Key activities related to water supply planning and basin <br />specific issues raised throughout the meetings and SWSI <br />process with respect to M&I and SSI demands in the <br />Arkansas Basin include the following: <br />^ Most of the major surface water providers believe <br />they will be able to meet 2030 needs through existing <br />supplies, projects underway, and future plans and <br />projects. <br />^ Growth in the Upper Arkansas headwaters region will <br />present challenges in obtaining and storing <br />augmentation water for M&I well pumping. <br />^ Reuse is being pursued by most providers that have <br />reusable supplies through implementation of the <br />following: <br />- Water rights exchanges. <br />- Non-potable use for irrigation of parks and golf <br />courses. <br />- Groundwater recharge. <br />~~ <br />- Gravel lake storage for storing reusable return <br />flows for later use for exchange or non-potable <br />irrigation. <br />^ Water conservation is a part of most water providers' <br />plans to meet future water supply needs. <br />^ Most providers do not foresee or propose to <br />implement extreme (Level 5) conservation due to <br />concerns over: <br />- Water demand hardening and the related impact <br />on reliability of supply during droughts (explained <br />in Section 8). <br />- Quality of life impacts as a result of financial <br />impacts and/or reduced landscaping. <br />- Customer acceptance of very high water rates or <br />the inability to landscape as they desire. <br />- Lawn watering is a source of water supply and can <br />be used during periods of drought by restricting <br />water use. <br />^ Most providers indicated they would acquire <br />additional agricultural rights to meet future demands <br />rather than implement extreme levels of conservation <br />that would have adverse impacts on their customers. <br />^ Concern over potable water quality and the <br />challenges with providing acceptable quality are key <br />concerns in the basin downstream of Pueblo <br />Reservoir. <br />Agricultural issues noted throughout SWSI in the <br />Arkansas Basin include: <br />^ There are concerns over agricultural transfers and its <br />impact on rural economies in the basin downstream <br />of Pueblo Reservoir. <br />^ Agricultural water shortages are common and widely <br />distributed throughout the basin but lack of water <br />availability or financial constraints impede throughout <br />additional water development. <br />^ There is a desire to ensure that water right holders <br />retain their ability to sell or transfer their water to the <br />best markets. This issue is controversial in the <br />Arkansas Basin. The challenge is to find options that <br />can protect the social, cultural, and economic integrity <br />of rural and agricultural communities while at the <br />same time protecting the property rights of water <br />rights holders and allowing them to seek water <br />markets that provide the best compensation should <br />they choose to market their water rights/personal <br />property right. <br />~~ <br />SiotewideWotarSupply Inifiotrve <br />10-2 S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\S10 11-11-04.DOC <br />