Laserfiche WebLink
Berry, Kuhn, and Trampe: The discussions haven’t reached the point where everyone <br />comes together as a group, but Metro parties are starting to talk with Grand County. John <br />Bickerman is not a Colorado water law or hydro logy expert, and he has succeeded in <br />getting people to keep talking. Why pick someone from outside of the state? No <br />perceived bias, nor do they live on Front Range or West Slope. It is n ot his job to find <br />the solution, but to help parties decide on solu tions. We do not know if we can agree, but <br />are going to give it a try. The mediator h as three jobs in this case – bi - laterals between <br />east and west slope, and in - team work with both Denver Metro area, and west slope <br />parties . How long will it take? We a re r eally only now beginning to see the possibilities. <br />The process could take at least a year or two, or three months if things get tied up and it <br />doesn’t go anywhere. If we make progress, Denver can settle issues with the Water <br />District, Grand, Eagle an d other counties. If this can happen, others may want to get in <br />on the deal. One issue to discuss is how these negotiations fit into the IBCC. Another <br />issue i s how to have both a transparent process and one that is effective , because of the <br />need for con fidentiality . <br /> <br />Water Supply Reserve Account <br /> <br />Rick Brown summarized work done in March on applications to the Water Supply Reserve <br />Account. The DNR team is w orking on purchase orders or contr acts to get projects underway , <br />and also processing new application s. The CWCB received seven applications for basin account <br />funds for Board consideration at their May meeting , totaling $ 438 ,000 . One applicant request ed <br />a combination of basin and state wide funding . <br /> <br />Rick visited with several of the Roundtables to ask fo r more feedback on how to improve the <br />system. He reported on several actions taken to improve the application process, including <br />adding information to the application (menus of choices) and provid i ng examples of budgets and <br />draft scopes of work. Rick wil l get contract and purchase order forms on web site as well. See <br />the sheet “Continued Implementation of Water Supply Reserve Account” provided by CWCB to <br />see what has been done to help improve the application and approval process. <br /> <br />One applicant asked whe ther it would be possible to have a simpler proposal for a smaller grant, <br />and Rick explained that the application requirements were based on state procurement policies, <br />and reduced application requirements for smaller projects would not be possible. Rick reported <br />that i nsurance requirements may be a problem for smaller grant applicants. <br /> <br />An i ssue that has emerged – in several different applications – is how a proposed project will <br />affect , impact , or impair water rights . This relates to Section 102 of the enabling legislation, <br />which is the water rights protection clause . Applications that failed to address this issue in their <br />originally filed materials have been approved for now, and the IBCC will re visit the issue during <br />the overall review of criteria and guidelines this fall . <br /> <br />IBCC members discussed the Water Supply Reserve Account: <br /> <br />Question : Do you need to have discussion on the specific case that has raised the above <br />issue? Answer: Yes, but as a part of the revi ew of Criteria and Guidelines later th is year. <br /> 16 <br />