Laserfiche WebLink
Page l~: additional surveys of eater providers: eiistiiig 72,000 gravel pit storage <br />existing right now: additional 80,000 planned in the future; many of these «i11 be used <br />for return flo«s that are cunenth- in the river today; table 3 has additional work; <br />additional info on Platte River Recovery program. <br />Page 16: discussion on what has happened on river in the last year; need to keep in <br />mind that lool~ig at availability of flows change quicldy; recently have been on a mid <br />1880s calls most of the summer-thus, junior calls have not be advantageous. <br />Page 21: minor edits; <br />Page 25: map added: <br />Page 26: new map on priority dates of controlling water rights; <br />Page 26: discussion of change over from spriiilder irrigation; added discussion on how <br />historically the change on the call on direct flo~y is dramatic (Jerke asks that this could <br />be emphasized because of the dramatic impact); <br />Page 31: new graph from South Platte Decision Support System Irrigation Acreage <br />Coverage; area photos from 196-200: see increase in use of sprinlders (almost 1/3r`' <br />of remaining irrigation of South Platte now on sprinklers); <br />Don Anent: Important to separate those that are on reservoir water: ditch ~~-ater <br />is different; alluvial well different; on reservoir- system, these sprinl~lers have <br />made a huge difference and this needs to be emphasized: would be wise to <br />separate reservoirs from the mix of water supplying sprinl~lers. <br />Opines that this also impacts surface water also had an impact on rivers. <br />DiNatale: See wording on bottom of page 30, please send comments <br />Bruce Gerk: North Sterling s efficiency will be clear within the next year; suspects that <br />there will be severe implications for us; if there were a way to make the water at <br />Julesburg 120 instead of 30, all of us ~yould benefit. Ifive were tr-~~ing to make the water <br />at the Stateline, as a state policy, 120 instead of 0, then eye would have more water in the <br />state of CO and be much less disruptive to agriculture. <br />DiNatale: page 3 L ~yater conservation plans; updating on entities that have submitted <br />water conservation plans; also see diagram of river at end of plan; also see links <br />throughout report. <br />Harold Evans: Is this intended to be a joint report for both Metro and South Platte? <br />Because the main items are those ~yhich the South Platte Basin Roundtable initially <br />requested. Thus, evidently Metro thought this was also useful to them? <br />DiNatale: Yes. <br />Evans: On page 4: focus is almost exclusively on CBT water; for most of us our biggest <br />competition is from Metro area not from CBT; this report is silent from this; therefore, I <br />am concerned that our ~yater «ill go to Metro area and this is totally silent to this. <br />DiNatale: See page ~: "there is yen- little irrigated acres in Water Districts 7, 8, 9, 23 & <br />80 upstream....purposes of ag rights." <br />Harold Evans: would be wise to add in language that emphasizes that there is direct <br />competition for certain Districts. <br />Web Jones: Important to note that water in Districts 1, 2 and 64 is comprised of CBT <br />flows that cannot leave those boundaries; <br />Bert Weaver: page 28: Water District 7: Clear Creek Water Project that roundtable has <br />fimded has stipulated storage water rights; ~~-ants to point out: 13 small reservoii- <br />