My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Arkansas - LAVWCD - Super Ditc_Application_July2008
CWCB
>
Alt Ag Water Transfer Grants
>
DayForward
>
Arkansas - LAVWCD - Super Ditc_Application_July2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2015 1:49:44 PM
Creation date
7/22/2008 9:39:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Alt Ag Water Transfer Grants
Basin Roundtable
Arkansas
Applicant
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
Description
Super Ditch Company
Board Meeting Date
7/22/2008
Contract/PO #
C150427
Alt Ag Water - Doc Type
Grant Application
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Alternafive Agricultural Water Transfer Methods -Grant Appilieation Form <br />January 2008 <br />recharge the aquifers. Recharge will extend the lives of the aqulfers, benefiting not only <br />their users but all users dependent upon the aquifers throughout the Denver Basin. <br />Abetter measure of the users and uses that would be served by water leasing is the <br />amount of water that the Super Ditch Company could make available. HDR and Honey <br />Creek Resources ran a number of scenarios as part of the detailed engineering study of <br />water leasing. Their estimates show that all of the water that SWSI projected would be <br />needed from irrigated agriculture in the Arkansas River basin by 2030 could be met <br />through water leasing. Specifically, they concluded that the following amounts of water <br />would be available for lease under very conservative assumptions: <br />Wet Year 42,215 ac-ft <br />Average Year 28,fi29 <br />Dry Year 14,020 <br />For example, the estimates assume only 65 percent participation by irrigators, <br />compared to approximately 90 percent participation by High Line Canal shareholders in <br />the 2005-2006 Aurora lease, and nver 90 percent participation in the 35-year PVID- <br />MWD lease in California. Irrigators on the Steering Committee similarly expect over 90 <br />percent participation. Moreover, the estimates assume a fallowing rate of 25 percent, <br />or three in twelve years, while a mare realistic assumption is probably three in ten <br />years. Finally, in dry years, many irrigators do not have adequate water to finish craps, <br />and would prefer to lease all of their water, which would increase the water available for <br />lease under extreme hydrological conditions, which correspond to maximum demands <br />of surface water-dependant municipalities. <br />Estimating the number of users to be served is further complicated by the fact that M&I <br />user-lessees have different demand schedules with regard to hydrological years. For <br />example, Colorado Springs needs to lease water to hedge against a Colorado River <br />call, and to recover from drawing down reservoirs during a drought. Aurora apparently <br />needs additional water during drought. The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is <br />interested in average and wet year leases to recharge and extend the lives of their <br />Denver Basin ground water supplies, but could rely on the aquifers in times of drought <br />when other M&l user-lessees dependant upon surface water supplies might need <br />leased water more. <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.