Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #3 <br />Meeting Summary <br />Preparation for Sasin Roundtable Meeting #4 <br />^ BRT members were reminded of the following: <br />- Send comments on approach and packaging of altennatives. <br />- Alternatives will be sent out for comment during June (comments due 2 weeks after). <br />^ Next BRT meeting will be held Wednesday, July 14, 2004 from 2 - 8 p.m. in Pueblo at the <br />same location (Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District offices). Meeting may start <br />at an earlier time. The date for the meeting has since been changed to Tuesday, <br />September 7. <br />^ Rick Brown reminded BRT members that they are invited and encouraged to attend other <br />basins' BRTs as they maybe of interest where there are inter-basin issues. <br />Public Comments <br />All public attendees at the BRT meeting were offered an opportunity to comment. A general <br />summary of the public comment portion of the meeting is provided below. <br />^ There is a serious conflict between groundwater storage and salinity issues. <br />^ SWSI team members were urged to look at the CSU salinity control/management research <br />study. <br />^ Small semi-agricultural properties are on the rise; they are hydrating new areas wlnicln have <br />water management/quality implications. <br />^ Include desalination on Arkansas as an alternative and tlne multiple use of pipeline rights-of- <br />way for trails. <br />^ Small agricultural towns may increase public reliance on tourist dollars associated with the <br />environment, i.e., a river with water in it. <br />^ Experience with Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues on the South Platte suggests that costs <br />are much greater than an environmental alternative. Environmental buffers could have <br />avoided ESA issues in tlne Soutln Platte drainage. <br />^ There is public support for SWSI, and interest in participating as the initiative moves <br />forward. <br />^ SWSI should keep environmental needs in mind throughout tlne process: <br />- Environmental organizations have provided as much information as they could. <br />- Potential benefits of improving irrigation efficiency. <br />- Expected some preferences and discussion of results to be presented. <br />- "Smart supply" and "Smart storage" thoughts leave been contributed. <br />^ The Southern Delivery System project will be bringing more water to Fountain Creek and <br />there already is a flooding problem and stream bank stability issue in that area. <br />^ Consider a recreational reservoir to nnitiaate flooding near mile marker 112 on I-25. <br />^ Equity disappeared in 1962. Dural representation on flee Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District Board has been reduced. <br />^ Senate Bill 215 would reduce the authority of counties. <br />^ Water rights are a property right. <br />^ Smart supply options should beconsidered -smarter, cheaper, faster ways of achieving <br />objectives. <br />- Consider alternatives that do not require new water development. <br />~~ <br />Arkansas BRT Mtg #3 Summary_Final 7-304.doc 7/9/2004 <br />