My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_3_Summary_Final_7-9-04
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
Arkansas_BRT_Mtg_3_Summary_Final_7-9-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:31:43 AM
Creation date
1/12/2008 5:36:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Arkansas
Title
Meeting Summary 3
Date
4/14/2004
SWSI - Doc Type
Summaries
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.