Laserfiche WebLink
Water supplies would most likely come from excess, yet legally available, surface flows. In turn, <br />such flows stem from storm water runoff, produced waters (from oil and gas activities), and <br />treated ef fluent. Colorado water law would need to change because, in part, current laws focus <br />on surface water and less with underground water. <br /> <br />It was proposed that the Arkansas Roundtable form a committee to address SB193. People <br />interested in serving on the comm ittee included: Gary Barber, John Re id , Jim Broderick, Reeves <br />Brown, Frank Wallace, and Dan Hendrichs. However, formation of the committee was tabled <br />due to a lack of a quorum. <br /> <br /> <br />Criteria and Guidelines for the Water Supply Reserve Account <br />The questions as ked in Eric Hecox’s memo dated 24 May 2006 were discussed by members of <br />the Roundtable. Hamel, Danielson, and Vanderschuere will report at the next IBCC member that <br />the criteria were discussed but there were not issues voted upon. <br /> <br />SB - 0179 provides $10 mil lion for each of 4 years for a total of $40 million. The monies are <br />allocated to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and then to projects approved by <br />the Water Roundtables. HB - 1400 also allocates monies to the Roundtables. These monies come <br />throug h the Division of Natural Resources with $500,000 budgeted for administration and the <br />balance (approximately $640,000) for Roundtables to use in conducting needs assessments. <br /> <br />Some of the discussion points include: <br />? <br /> <br />The criteria should include opportunitie s to study/assess socio - economic impacts. <br />? <br /> <br />The criteria should include opportunities to address mitigation needs. <br />? <br /> <br />The criteria should focus on how people/entities can work collaboratively to solve <br />problems rather than on specific projects that may not begin for several years. <br />? <br /> <br />The criteria should allow for an equitable proportion of monies across the state and across <br />ideas and interests. <br /> <br />In response to the questions Are the four eligible water activities listed in the law sufficient? <br />Should the criteria and guidelines specify other eligible water activities? The groups spoke <br />socio - economic and environmental impacts should also be included <br />strongly that in the <br />criteria. <br /> <br />In response to the question Should funding from this account [SB - 179] be used to help furt her <br />YES <br />the needs assessment? The groups replied . <br /> <br />should be not specific percentage of monies <br />Roundtable Members indicated that there <br />allocated <br />to either groundwater activities or studies. <br /> <br />While discussing a preference for loans or grants, the following comments were made: <br />? <br /> <br />A lack of ability to provide matching funds may prevent smaller/poorer entities from <br />being involved. <br />? <br /> <br />The CWCB has a loan process, so there is no need to create a new loan program nor <br />process. <br />