Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Hal Pierce with the Pine River Irrigation District (PRID) then provided a needs assessment for PRID. Hal <br />mentioned that PRID was a well established irrigation district in existence for 67 years. He thought the <br />SWSI report did a good job of laying out their needs: 1) storage; 2) municipal and industrial (M&I) <br />issues; and 3) conservation. PRID is looking at increasing their storage capability by about 50,000 AF. <br />They have been working with M&I water issues since 1972, but since the basin is becoming such a <br />bedroom community, they are loosing a lot of irrigation and gaining M&I use. His board put a resolution <br />together stating that whenever any irrigated acres comes back to the district, half the acreage is <br />reallocated for irrigation and goes back to the District for M&I use. When acreage is divided, <br />substantially less water (about 1/3 AF) is required. Their firm M&I cost is $250.00 perl AF and standby is <br />$40 perl AF (standby is water purchased and guaranteed, but lost if not used by the first of August). Once <br />water is made firm, it remains firm. PRID is in negotiations with Reclamation right now for M&I use, <br />and they also have non-consumptive release negotiations right now for CWCB instream flow. Their major <br />need right now is for carryover storage or to develop new storage. They also need a bubbler system and/or <br />heaters to remove icing problems on the spillway gates at Vallecito Dam, and are requesting state funding <br />assistance from CWCB. <br /> <br />Suggestions made on for work by the consultants included: 1) a general water supply versus demand <br />study be undertaken looking at the total basin supply, existing use, water demands/population, etc.; and 2) <br />demographic changes in the region (e.g., agricultural to municipal use, etc.) that could specifically look at <br />water/land sales (an increase in water availability) and/or aerial photos ofthe basin versus 40 years ago to <br />see how much land is currently being irrigated. <br /> <br />Various questions, answers, and comments arose at this time to include: Is there a formal process SWSI <br />needs assessment from the counties regarding feedback? The comment was made that the state opted to <br />take a purely demographic approach, and perhaps this roundtable needs to go back to all the <br />communities/municipalities to get their perceptions related to the numbers. In response to how often <br />population numbers are updated, the answer was no one was sure, but state demographers could attend a <br />roundtable meeting. As to what method is used to update M&I numbers, the need to be consistent with <br />the whole program was stressed. Globally, the state numbers are probably close, but it's the micro areas <br />within the region that need to be adjusted. Concern was voiced regarding the methodology used <br />throughout the state because every drainage, especially in this part of the county, is unique. It was <br />suggested that a basin could/should interface with the state's geographic information system (GIS) for <br />some of this information; this would allow integration with the towns and counties (through aerial <br />photography, etc.) and could then compare needs. <br /> <br />The discussion then turned to volunteer presenters for the next meeting (January loth) needs assessment. <br />They are: Kenny Smith (Dolores area); Jenny Russell (San Miguel area); and Kay Hartman and Mark <br />Ragsdale (Norwood area). <br /> <br />Discussion moved to the vacancy for an at-large seat at the roundtable. Two candidates, Jim Sisco, <br />Manager of Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company, and Ann Oliver, with the Nature Conservancy in <br />Durango, both applied for the position. Ann is interested in joining from an ecological perspective and <br />has water experience and experience working collaboratively with various groups. Jim is interested in <br />joining because all of the water issues being discussed at the roundtable are affecting his region. No <br />matter the outcome, the group thanked them both for applying. After discussion on which method to use <br />for the voting process, a ballot method was decided upon with a simple majority. With a close vote, Jim <br />Sisco was elected to a five year term. <br /> <br />After a short break, discussion turned to whether the roundtable would start accepting applications at the <br />January meeting. Comment was made that November nrd is the cut-off for a project to be considered on <br />January loth for CWCB funds. The next deadline is January 13 to be considered for March funds. Those <br /> <br />2 <br />