Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #3 <br />Meeting Summary <br />Significant discussion on environmental options and alternatives followed. A summary of t11e <br />various viewpoints expressed by participants is presented below. <br />Environmental Options <br />^ It was noted that we maybe drying up agricultural lands for >1lstream water needs. <br />^ With the gap focusing on meeting demand, environmental options may increase fl1e M&I <br />gap. <br />^ M&I needs cannot be subverted by environmental options, need to look at every water user. <br />^ Imported waters Have already increased water for environment. <br />^ One participant suggested that tamarisk removal may be a win/win for the environment. <br />^ Changing irrigation practices from flood to drip irrigation may reap benefits for the <br />environment. <br />^ Limiting factors such as selenium may result in taking agricultural land out of production. <br />^ Absolute water rights fllat go beyond minimum streamflow are necessary to protect the <br />environment. <br />^ Dewatering agricultural lands for instream flow provides water to streams in flood season <br />only. Without irrigation, there would be less return flow back to augment lower stream flows <br />u1 the fall and winter months. <br />^ Gary Barber and Terry Scanga will write up an environmental option. An opinion was <br />expressed that storage is needed to provide more water to environment. <br />^ It was suggested that the SWSI team move the permanent pools option from infrastructure <br />alternative to environmental alternative. <br />^ Environmental alternatives are not consistent with other thematic alternatives; environmental <br />issues are an overlay to other themes but should not be considered a separate theme. <br />^ Environmental alternatives may be necessary on small streams where there are no projects. <br />^ The CWCB develops an instream flow work plan every year. <br />^ Environmental options are a new demand and this is out of place. <br />^ Must protect the voluntary flow program >IZ the Arkansas Basin. This is a success story of <br />cooperation. <br />^ It is not clear which rivers have environmental flow needs. <br />^ There is insufficient water for environmental demands >11 the Arkansas River basin. <br />^ W11ere you have an agricultural to M&I transfer, you may also have fl1e need to maintain <br />stream flows. <br />^ Environmental equity -why are the upper portions of streams more important than the lower <br />reaches? <br />^ The Gunnison Bas>11 wants to s11ow some type of demand on every reach so that there is no <br />water left for other uses. <br />^ There maybe some synergy with the environment in creating these alternatives. Tl1e <br />environment is a big part of the Colorado economy. <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #3 Summary_Final 7-304.doc 7/9/2004 <br />