Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alan Hamel, Jeris Danielson, Jonathan Fox, Jay Winter and Gary Barber presented an overview <br />of issues faced by the Arkansas Basin. Their comments stressed the diversity within the basin, <br />noting a wide variety of interests and needs. The basin has both water exports and imports, and <br />faces challenges in complying with Colorado’s compact with downstream neighbor Kansas. <br />Presenters expressed the desire for a socio - economic assessment of the impact of water transfers <br />within t he basin and with other basins. Gary Barber introduced a spreadsheet created by the <br />Roundtable’s N eeds A ssessment C ommittee that will begin to aggregate information on studies <br />that have been done . The intent is to identify information gaps in their needs assessment . <br /> <br />Discussion of Water Supply Reserve Account Criteria and Guidelines <br /> <br />Eric Wilkinson summarized issues considered in assembling the draft Criteria and Guidelines on <br />behalf of the joint CWBC/IBCC working group that was mandated to address the topic. Rick <br />Brown, of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), prepared an initial “strawman” <br />th st <br />draft for the working group’s consideration. The group met on July 17 and 31 , and <br />incorporate d input received from the roundtables . Roundtable input p redominately centered <br />about answers to questions posed by Eric Hecox in a May 24, 2006 memo, and this feedback was <br />used by the CWCB/IBCC work group to create a draft document. <br /> <br />Rick Brown gave a brief explanation of each section of the draft criteria and g uidelines, prior to <br />comments and discussion by the IBCC members. The draft is divided into three parts . D etails <br />on issues discussed by the working group are included in text boxes. <br /> <br />The joint work group proposed to make nine of the total 40 million dol lars (over 4 years) <br />available to Roundtables in a “ basin fund ” to ensure that each Roundtable had a pool of <br />resources to use as they saw fit (within established critiera). The same criteria used for <br />Roundtables for basin funds would also apply to the 31 m illion dollar competitive statewide <br />funds, which would be available for requests from all basins. <br /> <br />th <br />By statute, a ll funds must be committed by June 30 , 2010 . A proposed cash flow diagram is <br />included in the draft. The working group has proposed that ba sin funds be available for <br />allocation at every meeting of the CWCB based on recommendations of R oundtables. <br />Applications for money from the statewide fund would be gathered over a 6 month period, with <br />funding awarded twice yearly at meetings of the CWCB. <br /> <br />Eric Wilkinson noted that he and the working group had heard the concern that all of the funds <br />could be consumed by a few large projects, and discussed the possibility of placing limitation s <br />on the amount of money that could be received by any one grant or loan recipient. However, the <br />working group decided not to include any provisions in the draft to that effect . <br /> <br />By statute, a roundtable has to approve a water activity in order for it to be eligible for funding <br />from this account. The draft criteria and guidelines allow each roundtable to decide how they <br />would like to “approve” a water activity, but it does require that an application include a <br />description of the approval process used by the roundtable and a summary of the degree of <br />support in that ba sin for the water activity . This encourages consensus - building early in the <br /> 5 <br />