My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
28
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:38:06 PM
Creation date
4/1/2008 11:31:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/18/2008
Description
IWMD Section - Presentation of Agricultural Water Conservation Paper
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Section 6 <br />Site-Specific Opportunities and <br />Limitations <br />The opportunities and limitations for agricultural water conservation measures vary <br />significantly from basin to basin. In order to calculate volumes and locations of <br />potentially available water, a basin specific analysis will be necessary, a task that is <br />beyond the scope of this paper. A few examples of the basin specific limitations and <br />potential opportunities are noted below. More detailed information on interstate <br />compact requirements can be found in Section 4 of the SWSI report. <br />South Platte <br />^ h1 the South Platte, the compact with Nebraska only requires the delivery of water <br />to one ditch n1 Nebraska under certain conditions during the irrigation season. <br />There are no requirements for delivery during the non-irrigation season. <br />^ The Three States Agreement between Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming and the <br />Department of Interior has certain periodic flow targets and requirements <br />regarding future depletions. <br />^ The conversion to center pivot sprinklers in Water Districts 1, 2, 3, and 64 may <br />result in a reduction of return flows and impacts on alluvial groundwater, which <br />historically were supplied from flood irrigation. <br />^ There is a potential for water conservation measures in Water District 64, especially <br />downstream near the state line if these were implemented in a way that would not <br />impact any Colorado water rights or endangered species flows. <br />Arkansas <br />^ The Arkansas River Compact requires the maintenance of historical streamflow <br />conditions as of the date of the compact. <br />^ The Colorado State Engineer has taken the position that agricultural efficiency <br />improvements in the Arkansas may not result in any reduction of historical return <br />flows as contemplated in the Arkansas River Compact. <br />^ Existing irrigation practices have resulted in return flow s that have raised the water <br />table resulting in non-beneficial CU (as evaporation from the soil surface) and <br />increasing the salinity of both ground water and surface water. Any measures <br />addressing these concerns must be in conformance with the Compact. <br />^ Irrigation of certain lands results in significant impacts to downstream water <br />quality from leaching of metals and salinity. In addition the return flows from <br />irrigation of these lands impacts agricultural production on other lands diverting <br />downstream. <br />DRAFT 6-1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.