Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT MEETING NOTES to Accompany MFR 22 February 2007 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Chatfield Reallocation Vertical Team Meeting <br /> <br />1. The subject meeting was held in Denver, CO, on 18 January, 2007. Participants included <br />representatives ofHQUSACE, NWD, NWO, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, <br />Colorado State Parks, Water User Representatives the Audubon Society, Greenway <br />Foundation, and Tetra Tech Project Manager (see attached sign-in sheet). <br /> <br />A. The purpose of the meeting was to engage USACE (Corps) Northwestern Division <br />and HQ staff in discussions with the District, the sponsor, the eventual water users, <br />and other stakeholders in order to resolve key policy issues and questions of process. <br /> <br />B. Key project issues areas (listed in item 2) include: <br /> <br />(1) Overall Study Approach, Authority, And Levels Of Approval <br />(2) Water Supply Storage Contract Issues <br />(3) Analytical Requirements <br />(4) Analysis Of Ecosystem Restoration (ER) As A Potential Reallocated Purpose <br /> <br />C. The result of the meeting was a commitment by all participants to resolve the <br />identified remaining issues as they pertain to the proposed project in order to ensure a <br />Reallocation ReportlEIS that will gain approval by the Chief of Engineers and <br />ASA(CW) when forwarded at completion of the draft. A partial listing of action <br />items is listed in item 3, at the end of this MFR. <br /> <br />D. To begin the meeting, a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Rick McLoud (Centennial <br />Water and Sanitation District) was given. The PowerPoint summarized the Chatfield <br />Reallocation project including who the upstream and downstream users are, why they <br />are seeking storage He also discussed parties with instream interests, interested <br />environmental groups, M&I usage, water sources, water build-out needs, and the <br />history of studies leading up to the study. <br /> <br />He explained that current need surpasses existing supply, and that future increases in <br />demand will outpace increases in supply. Available supply was projected to be <br />90,000 acre-feet less than demand in 30 years, according to the SWSI Report. He <br />described the various alternative sources available and associated limitations to each <br />sources, including increased groundwater use (unsustainable), trans-mountain <br />diversions (costly, politically difficult), local storage (impractical for large, on <br />channel storage), and conservation (part of solution but limited in potential scale). <br /> <br />Mr. McLoud also gave a brief history of studies leading to this effort, described the <br />local efforts to negotiate an equitable and agreeable distribution of the reallocated <br />space between 16 users, and showed a graph contrasting seasonal customer demand <br />for water with availability. <br /> <br />1 <br />