WSP12017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0163 to municipal and industrial uses, and proposals that might lead to additional transfers to those new uses as well as to recreation. The result has been major dry-up of agricultural lands. These transfers are perceived to have resulted in major social, economic, and environmental impacts in the Arkansas River Valley. In late 1991, and early 1992, the Colorado Water Supply Company (CWS) attempted to acquire and control at least 51% of the Ft. Lyon Canal Company shares. The water controlled by these shares would apparently have been delivered to and used by municipalities in the Front Range metropolitan area. CWS was not able to acquire a sufficient number of shares and has therefore temrinated its water transfer plans. There remains however continued concern that Ft. Lyon Canal Company, and/or other irrigation companies in the valley will be subject to acquisition attempts and the subsequent transfer of water away from agriculture, primarily out of the valley. Task Force I was a local group formed to investigate the proposed Ft. Lyon acquisition. Task Force II, a successor to Task Force I, was formed to develop an entity capable of providing an alternative to the acquisition and transfer of agricultural water rights out of the valley. In addition, the State of Colorado through the Department of Natural Resources and the CWCB is seeking to find alternatives to the transfer of agricultural water which may result in significant adverse agricultural, social, economic, and environmental impacts. In SB 92- 87, signed by Governor Romer on May 27, 1992, the CWCB was directed to evaluate alternatives to the acquisition and transfer of Ft. Lyon Canal Company water. CONTENT OF PROPOSALS The study proposal should include a detailed description of how the consultant would conduct each of the study tasks, the personnel and/or subcontractors to be used (include appropriate resumes), an organizational chart, and how it will meet the proposed study schedule. A cost estimate, including a schedule of labor and indirect charges, shall also be submitted. Final study costs will be negotiated between the CWCB and the consultant. The content of the study proposal, described in Appendix A, and the proposed study outline described in Appendix B, are presented as guidance for the format of the proposal. Each consultant should prepare and submit three (3) copies of the proposal. Proposals should be developed generally in the format presented in Appendix B and should be concise and relevant to the categories and tasks identified. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS Section 24-30-1403(2), CRS, specifies that a state agency: shall conduct discussion with no less than three persons regarding their qualifications, approaches to the project, abilities to furnish the required 2 ~,