My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RGBRT Minutes of 6-12-06
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
RGBRT Minutes of 6-12-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:17:19 PM
Creation date
7/16/2007 1:28:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Rio Grande
Title
Minutes
Date
6/12/2006
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.
/
11
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
Ray — often entities are not willing to take on a feasibility study if the outcome is <br />uncertain <br />Travis — fund the front end and then at times help implement <br />Ray - noted that most of the infrastructure was built by develope rs — a “land scam” — the <br />sources of money are not available any more — now faced with the challenge of <br />maintaining the status quo for ag related infrastrucute <br />Rio - also a reverse process where capital is going to change use of water from ag to <br />other uses — maybe we need to specify funds for purchase of water rights for <br />environmental purposes and sustaining ag <br />Travis - initially, this was looked at for state sponsored projects <br />Mike - maybe this should support analysis of projects on the front end <br />Paul — how to keep th e money from going to projects and groups that are already well <br />funded — so the criteria should includes “needs based” - i.e.: #1) value of project to <br />Roundtable and #2) n eeds based <br />Ray — contraty point of view — ex: Union Park where Arapahoe County is proposing <br />b uild ing a reservoir on the Gunnison and take water to Aurora — A County wasn’t willing <br />to spend their money addressing Gunnison Basin’s needs — but the state could spend <br />some of this to address Gunnison’s needs <br />Doug — worried about this money being spent on wron g things and not the Basin’s that <br />are impacted <br />Ray — agrees with Paul’s concern — encourages state to look at ways that otherwise <br />might not be looked at <br />Paul - want to figure out how to get funding to entities that need it to protect and <br />understand impacts to t heir water <br />Mike G - only used for needs that do not have other sources <br />Mel - in RG Basin, we have a lot of needs #1 to restore aquifer — depends on Mother <br />Nature and what we do in SLV — what can we do to restore aquifers? One thing we can <br />do is decrease water consumption. Are their ways to salvage water in big water <br />years — need to look at that during drought in anticipation of future water years <br />Charlie — if we set up criteria that doesn’t deal with just needs vs effectiveness towards <br />meeting a goal of this basin - what are the merits of a given project? <br /> Page 4 of 11 RGBRT <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> June 12 , 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.