april 10 South Platte Basin Roundtable Meeting

Home Browse Search

3) Go back to trying to do more quantitative model which requires more money in studies; I agree with previous comments that our money is not well spent in refining these quantitative answers to the nth degree in this particular basin. Studies give directions to DNR and consultants and thus takes this requirement away from roundtable Mike Shimmin: Perspective: In our basin, the SWSI process got studies further along that in other basins because of population; thus, SWSI process probably gets us 80-90% of our needs assessment; these four items will provide us with information to give us some reliable results as to where water will be in future; as per meaning for us or for other basins: we need answers to the questions such as "is there any appreciable unappropriated water here"; this more focused scope of work will assist us with discussions in other basins; thus, I think this is worthwhile study to provide clearer and more conclusive knowledge as per supply; 2 of these issues: consumable effluent and the current administration, are issues that SWSI did not struggle with; thus, I believe this is worth the $85,000 to get us closer to conclusions that we can rely on and to use in our discussions with other basins as per multi-basin projects. Lisa Darling: Is this really the best way to answer these questions: Surveys? Shimmin: Consultants are telling us that is the only way they can answer these questions with the money available; think this is probably true because only way to get that is from providers; don't know how to get a handle on it, and consultants must have thought it through. Hecox: Yes, these studies are going forward as qualitative vs. quantitative but benefit is covering broader area and many of the providers are involved in complex studies; majority of work that was done for first SWSI was done similarly in this manner: talking with providers. Lisa Darling: SWSI did have to grapple with this; perhaps some of these issues have been resolved; Hecox: Compare Gunnison: many providers did not divulge information and now on second go-around. Wilkinson: CWCB's point of view: SWSI was used to get an idea of the entire picture; South Platte is different because it is clearly over- appropriated and ah'eady very complexly managed; for South Platte to adopt a needs assessment for SWSI will be similar; we don't have non- consumptive needs around here that can take unappropriated waters and use, because we don't have unappropriated water; here we are trying to complete studies that we feel that were deficient; unappropriated water is a statutory charge; current vs. historic administration: administration has changed and this is something that should be addressed; our gap may be greater than is shown; consumable effluent reuse: this is important because we will hear from other basins; thus this is the information that we will need in order to have discussions with other basins. 5