Laserfiche WebLink
with water rights, instream flow, endangered species flows. There are a lot of technical <br />issues and decision points. Jenny said that it looked like the work would be done <br />internally, and not through a consultant. Steve suggested that we invite someone to <br />attend an upcoming meeting. Steve will contact Ray Alvarado. <br />In discussing the Water Supply Reserve Account, it was noted that there is less money <br />this year and they needed to deternune how to allocate it. One of the concerns was how <br />much money had been requested from the State Fund and mal~ing sure there was enough <br />money for those. Jem1y was going to distribute info from IBCC including a graph of how <br />much has been requested. The main question was how the IBCC should allocate fiends, <br />lalowing they're short this year. A consensus decision was made to fund it as requests <br />have been coming in which is 70% to the State account, 30% to the Basin accounts which <br />means about $200,000 to each basin. There is still some confiision on what should be <br />funded at the basin level and what should be funded at the state level. There are many <br />pending requests at the state level. Jim Isgar added that there was less money for 2008 <br />based on less severance tax and more bills using severance tax. We have a $4m carry <br />over from this year, so we'll really have $lOm for 2008; in addition, another year was <br />added to the funding mechanism. Jenny stated we have approved $127,700 from our <br />basin account. As of September, a total of $1,327,500 was approved and sent for State <br />account fielding. Jemly will share graphics on state-wide basin expenditure. Chuck <br />Lawler asked if we could get an accounting on a regular basis. <br />Jemiy reported that the Uiuversity of Denver formed a water firtures panel that presented <br />a report and IBCC got a preliminary overview. The panel consisted of more than water <br />people, such as mayors and business leaders. They came up with eight suggestions, some <br />of which were interesting. Some members of IBCC felt there was nothing new presented. <br />It is another example of the Metro area becoming more anxious about water issues given <br />the increasing consumptive needs. There was criticism that if you expect people to pay <br />attention, you need to have some new ideas. Bill Trampe from Upper Gunnison started a <br />discussion on land use-water linkage. <br />Gary Kennedy shared his opinion that the State was micro-managing the process and the <br />basins. He said the Jackson Gulch request portion that went to the State was <br />conditionally approved, pending questions that need to be addressed. He said that most <br />of those questions were answered at the basin meeting when the request was presented. <br />JR Berry shared that the same thing happened to lus request. The types of questions <br />included requests for detailed budget and scope of work (all was provided in application). <br />Why don't they already have that information when we pass it up to IBCC? It is highly <br />suggested that the state and the basin share conunon forms in order to streamline the <br />process. <br />The IBCC Public Outreach has put together a website that will be available at the end of <br />September. Draft info for each basin needs to be reviewed by the basins. If anyone <br />wants to look at the draft information, let Jennie know (Steve, vice chair and IBCC Reps <br />will get it). They've asked for water pictures. Jim Siscoe and Scott B will send some. <br />