Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #4 September 7 2004

Home Browse Search

Rotating Agricultural Transfer Arkansas River option Benefits Issues Rotating •Improves M &I reliability • Need guarantee that rotating Agricultural • Provides more stable supplies will remain in irrigation Transfer (Fallowing) income to agricultural • May be more expensive than with Firming for users permanent ag transfer Agricultural Use • Preserves agricultural • Some agricultural demands (hay use and orchards) are difficult to fallow • Can provide water to • Ag supplies may not be in needed upper (via exchange), location or of sufficient quantity or urban and lower quality subbasins (Arkansas • Determination of transferable Valley Pipeline) amount • Potential enhancements • Soil, weed, labor and equipment to water quality and management streamflows • Storage is needed to regulate supplies • Compact compliance Rotating Agricultural Transfer Concepts • Limited exchange potential below Pueblo Reservoir • Examine ditches diverting above or at Pueblo Reservoir — Provide source of high quality water — Potential to dedicate a portion of the flow to in- stream uses — Capture in- stream releases below Pueblo May require gravel lake storage Pump to ditches • May require payment to ditches (money or water) • Return flows can also be collected and pumped to these users Rotating Agricultural Transfer Existing evaluation of consumptive use for ditches below Pueblo Reservoir (Kansas litigation) Rely on non - tributary groundwater for drought firming where available Set aside of a portion of the yield for firming of agricultural supplies Full use of consumptive use return flows from transfer — Exchange — Reuse — Agricultural firming — Lease to reduce project costs 32