My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RGBRT Minutes of 10-9-06
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
RGBRT Minutes of 10-9-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:17:14 PM
Creation date
7/16/2007 12:54:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Rio Grande
Title
Minutes
Date
10/9/2006
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mike G — suggests we move to discussion of sub - districts, so all have a better <br />understanding of what they can do and what are implications of their success (or failure ) <br /> <br />John S. – La Jara water supply is inadequate to expand — won’ t even allow to water a <br />cow anymore, so where will city get its water? <br /> <br />Mike G. – C ity of La Jara needs to come to meetings and present their issues to their <br />RT <br /> <br />Steve V — water will have to be acquired from someone - and go through water court <br /> <br />Eric — wants to commend this group and N eeds Assessment Sub C ommittee for going <br />down this path — realizes that the $40 mill ion is a lot of money — but not necessarily for <br />the scale of the problems statewide, so prioritizing is vital <br /> <br />John S — will this $ be available to a city ? <br /> <br />Mike G. – few sidebars — go back to criteria, if it fits go forward <br /> <br />Fred - addressing La Jara, one of criteria is recognition that ag a nd municipalities may <br />not have money to acquire necessary water <br /> <br />Mike G — redirecting conversation — comments from only a f ew people at the table — not <br />sure why sitting back? Asleep? Tacit approval? <br /> <br />Peter C. — has heard pretty good agreement about sustainability around SLV — but <br />thinks we “dance” around the issue of “who owns it” — all water is private prope rty so <br />who makes the har d calls? what % of problem is what water? H opefully some of the <br />sub - districts will get at this — not confident about h ow to make such calls <br /> <br />Mike G — concept sounds simple, but the process of doing what Pete brings up is <br />difficult — that’s why giving Sub distri cts support to develop this decision making process <br />is what we’ve been talking about, fairly and equitably, can we channel resources to <br />help? <br /> <br />Sub - district Presentation <br /> <br />Ray — Conservancy and Conserva tion Districts – concept is that the p eople who benefit <br />fr om their formation are the members — example — drainage districts formed when water <br />table too high — appraisers would look at location and types of soils, say that land right <br />next to it are getting most benefit, so assessments for district were based upon benefi t <br />lands received — SLV was working pretty well until about 1995, well enough that S tate <br />E ngineer had not yet regulated well pumping — issue of we lls pumping out of priority has <br />been in mind for a generat ion or more - who caused this? Our parents and <br />grandparent s — when first wells went in an d dried up things, when brush broken out, <br />there’s plenty of blame to go around ! Valley was lucky to develop the size of our ag <br /> Page 6 of 13 RGBRT <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> October 9 , 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.