Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_3_Summary_Final_7-9-04

• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Meeting Summary 3
• Date: 4/14/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Summaries

Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #3
Meeting Summary
Preliminary Gap Analysis
Kelly DiNatale presented the prelinnary gap analysis for the Arkansas Bas>11 which included
an initial estimate of gap. The initial gap was calculated by subtracting current demand from
future demand including 6 percent total demand reduction, which is expected to occur over the
next 30 years as a result of "passive conservation." "Passive conservation" is defined >11 SWSI as
the amowlt of conservation that is expected to occur from t11e use of low flow fixtures >11 bofll
new and existing residential and commercial applications. Additional conservation savings will
also be evaluated as a possible strategy for meeting some or all of the final remaining demand
gap. Kelly explained that the short term projects (identified projects and processes) as well as
knowledge of existing supplies and water rights were applied to this initial gap estimate. He
t11en described how mid-term and long-term projects would be considered to meet the
remaining gap. Kelly discussed fllat supply availability at a basin level would be used as a
"check" for meeting the remaining demands.
Feedback from the BRT members on the prelin~lary gap analysis is sunmlarized below.
^ Data in the Western Resources Advocates (WRA) Report should be incorporated into the
analysis of conservation savings; SWSI team members confirmed fllat it has been considered.
Kelly DiNatale explained fllat SWSI is using a lower value for passive conservation than
suggested by WRA because Colorado's residential and commercial building "stock" is much
newer than many of the cities cited by WRA. Because Colorado grew by 30 percent in the
1990s, most of this growth was subject to the 1992 Energy Conservation Act and low flow
fixtures and carlservation reductions have already taken place. This means that future
conservation from retrofit of existing plumbing and new construction will occur but at a
reduced rate. In addition, it was pointed out that more intensive conservation will be
considered as a strategy for meeting future water needs.
^ SWSI team members clarified that the estimated 6 percent demand reduction from passive
conservation is included in fl1e overall demand estimates and preliminary gap estimate. One
participant suggested that it be shown explicitly instead of "burying" it in the gap (i.e., take
credit for it).
^ SWSI team members clarified that the gap is not "negative and positive" but instead
represents the difference between existing demands and future demands.
^ One participant suggested that when the supply analysis is complete, it should delineate the
amount of "available supply," that is available beyond the 2030 planning horizon of SWSI.
^ It would be more appropriate to include Custer County in t11e Upper Arkansas subbasin.
^ Participants clarified that 18,075 AFY of the gap is all >IZ El Paso County, not Pueblo.
^ One participant questioned which model was used to determine the availability of water for
successive use (e.g., for Colorado Springs). SWSI team members noted that Colorado Springs
has indicated they will reuse their water, but participants questioned whether it is possible
for water providers to completely reuse their consumptive use water entitlements.
^ It was noted that the theoretical maximum for reuse is difficult to reach.
^ It was clarified that exchanges for the Urban Counties were based on what water providers
indicated as being their plans.
~~
Arkansas BRT Mtg #3 Summary_Final 7-304.doc 7/9/2004