Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Austin: They are not selling you the water, they are selling you space, and you won't own it, you <br />are leasing it. One way to look at it is what is the value of storage? Then discount the fact that <br />you don't own it. <br /> <br />Rick: Cost of storage, to look at reallocating storage in Chatfield, you have to follow the rules, <br />you have to pay for the cost of storage. There is room for creativity here, what could it be? If <br />we get too greedy, we may not get anything. Vaughn - want you to talk about these two <br />contracts. <br /> <br />Vaughn - Where we are right now, from Corps' perspective, off normal timeline, contracting <br />wouldn't show up until ROD is issued, trying to push timeline back, once ROD is issued we <br />don't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what isn't going to work. They have been <br />thinking about the contracting, there are two proj ects, Howard Hansen City of Tacoma and Waco <br />Lake in Texas, both reallocation projects with mitigation components, waiting for copies to study <br />the language. Be working with Parks to talk about mitigation at the same time, so the contracts <br />are going to look like a water supply agreement between CWCB and the Corps, and have <br />appendices that will be the design agreement, mitigation agreement, and things like that. Not <br />sure how it will look. To follow up, will be negotiation between CWCB and water users <br />concurrent with all this, we need to have something that will work with all the water users so <br />when CWCB signs we can sign with them too. Whether one formed entity or multiple <br />agreements, I don't know. The other component will potentially be a loan contract component <br />for those who are looking to borrow money from CWBB to pay for their cost of storage. That <br />would be separate agreements, we already have form agreements for that. So that's the big <br />picture. Will there need to be some sort of modification of the existing agreements in place? So <br />that the CWCB doesn't get put on the hook with the Corps without 100% that the water users are <br />in agreement with us all. That's the risk that the State Controller will not take. The other little <br />components, who is going to be doing recreational mitigation, that will work itself out as we <br />move forward. <br /> <br />Jim Dorsch (?) when you talk about those contracts, CWCB? <br /> <br />Vaughn: Your letters of commitment. Tom probably has a file of these. Regarding the loan <br />program, some are interested, Kirk Russell was supposed to come, we have a two page fact <br />study, our loan program, we have to get applications from interested parties, and we are going to <br />get a 2 page fact study out, those interested, there's normally a feasibility study to be submitted <br />with an application, we are going to pay for this feasibility study with a grant, have one <br />consultant who can be used by all the interested parties. This streamlines the process. More info, <br />contact Kirk. To summarize, the contracting process, inching forward, more will get fleshed <br />out, going with what Steve Cohn was suggesting, things could change. The one contract with <br />multiple appendices. From the state's perspective easier to do it all in one. <br /> <br />Rick: Dan said CWCB needs some additional authority, to have this contracting role? That you <br />would articulate this, part oflegislation this year? So by November you need to develop this. <br /> <br />This document represents the personal staff notes of Susan Maul and are not to be considered a formal record of <br />this meeting. <br /> <br />10 <br />