WSP06673 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. 8. <:::> C) ('j (0 (.l:) N 9. 10. Downgrading irrigation acreage projections to meet anticipated future water supplies has not been considered at this point in the assessment. To do so would be to side-step the issue and ignore the eeonomic consequences of not finding a solution.' These comments do not require any action. Comments made above (see No. 5 and No.6) about population projections are also pertinent here. The consumptive use for surface water irrigation was reexamined and the estimate was revised downward in the Kansas River Subbasin portion of the state (ASA 1010). Consumptive use for surface water irrigation was changed from 95 percent from 1972 to 65 percent. Projections were changed from 92 percent to 62 percent for 1985 and from 90 percent to 60 percent for 2000. The consumptive use for surface water irrigation in the Cimarron-Arkansas- Walnut basin portion of the state (ASAll03) was also reexamined but was not changed. This is in keeping with surface water irrigation practice in southwest Kansas where only a small portion of water withdrawn from surface sources is returned to a stream. Therefore, this water use falls within the definition of consumptive use adopted by the Water Resources Council, "...water consumed which reduces water supply and cilnnot be reused. " Consumptive use for irrigation from groundwater was not changed. The higher consumptive use for irrigation from groundwater reflects the small quantities of return flow available for reuse downstream. ' The suggestion that projected irrigated acreages for Scott and Lane counties be revised downward to reflect the developing water supply situation has not been acted upon because this would preclude consideration of other possible solutions which, may be available with less severe economic eonsequences. Comments listed above regarding irrigation projections (see No.9) also apply to this suggestion. The projections of irrigated acreages were made using a 1966 base. The rate of irrigation development in some counties has been higher than was anticipated. Had sufficient time and money been available, a new set of projections could have been developed. However, statewide total of irrigated acreage probably would not have changed much and, since the nature and relative magnitude of the problem are apparent from the projections used, there is little need to develop new projections. The suggestion that acreage projections for irrigation in southeast Kansas he reviewed has not been followed because the development of additional irrigation acreages in that portion of the state should not appear to cause any problems related to water. 150 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I