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
that scores will be normalized (i.e., it will not matter how many performance measures there
are).
^ One participant expressed concern over the water quality scoring scale.
^ It was also noted that water quality is a concern for M&I use in addition to environmental
uses.
Alternatives Development
Kelly DiNatale provided an overview of alternatives development for the basin integratuzg an
overview of options t11at have been provided by Basin Roundtable members, and bas>lzwide
options such as conservation, aub Zentahon plans, reuse, use of existing facilities, inbasin
infrastructure, agricultural transfers, and transbasin infrastructure. Kelly reiterated that
transbasin basin alternatives will be developed at a conceptual level, issues will be identified,
and affected parties will also be identified.
The following topics were discussed by the group.
^ It was noted that reuse could impact the river by changing t11e water rights call pattern.
^ One participant questioned whether reuse will impact senior rights; it was noted that senior
rights will be calling water anyway, but that some impact will occur to jtulior water rights.
^ It was noted that the only reusable water a provider is entitled to is the consumptive use
portion of the water unless the decree provides that the water is fully consumable (i.e., some
transbas>11 water).
^ Municipal decrees are linuted to the decreed amount and agricultural change of use decrees
usually result in more water in the river than before the change.
^ It was noted that it can be difficult to get to 100 percent reuse, and that do~nmstream storage
is often needed to maximize reuse.
^ In a dry year, the ability to reuse water can be very linuted, due to limited exchange
potential.
^ Storage options could include groundwater/ASR (aquifer storage/recovery) in addition to
surface storage options; however, given the geology and presence of marine shales u1 the
lower Arkansas, water quality issues are a significant constraint.
^ Some ASR is already occurr>11g in Colorado Springs and Pueblo; should look at this option >11
SWSI as it will become more important in future. El Paso County is thinkuzg about sinular
options; the SWSI team should include that in t11e analysis if it can be quantified.
^ If we have along-term surplus, we may be able to use ASR to augment M&I needs.
^ Groundwater recharge can be used in conjunction wifll augmentation.
^ Agriculture acres required to meet M&I demand is based on firm yield supply for M&I users.
^ It was noted that the 2002 drought was more severe than the 1950's drought.
~~
Arkansas BRT Mtg #3 Summary_Final 7-304.doc 7/9/2004