Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Dan: Part of the outreach plan for the Board is, under the last administration, citizen <br />board was not encouraged to go to GA. Educate committee members, been before them <br />twice, last time got 2 hours to preview the projects bill. Gave overview of financing, <br />methods of making decisions, reporting, then gave a copy of what a draft bill would look <br />like. Among those statutory chances were two ownership and operations-related statute <br />changes. First dealt with Chatfield, the other was with the water partnership concept, the <br />Board to own water and land, do facility operations and maintenance. Once activity <br />Board started looking at in July, in policy 18, more Chatfield-like activities, do case by <br />case like this, or a broader case. Both these provisions are in the draft bill, Curry <br />recognized that both the item, language was major shift. And she's right, direction the <br />people want the Board to go. There's local support, these 15 entities and on board. Also <br />took opportunity to mention joint Ag committee has helped us move this forward by <br />passing support for this, and brought us to where we are today. Hopefully, see how all of <br />this coming together. One action item for this group, now that the Committee is aware of <br />this we are pursuing, may be some pushback from the Gunnison area, for example, the <br />question of trans-mountain, and eminent domain, this group now has the ability of <br />starting to engage in a state legislative campaign to get this passed in the bill next year. <br />Needs to be put on the to-do list starting in early December and through the session. <br />Hope there won't be broad opposition, but needs education to be done, and part of draft <br />feasibility study/fact sheet we want to work on. Centerpiece of background they need, <br />and need to include all the way back to original authorization for Chatfield. <br /> <br />Tom: In addition, SJR, e-mail a copy ofletterfrom review committee, with signatures, to <br />Sen. Salazar, pointing out how important this project is, and lending their support, so the <br />support is there. With continued support we can do what we need to do to make this <br />successful. <br /> <br />David: Was this sent out? <br /> <br />Tom: Got from GA web site. Any other questions? <br /> <br />David: Are we on #2 - <br /> <br />Tom: 2c. <br /> <br />(?) (Behind Dan): Notes that were made from meeting with Corps? On page 2? Based <br />on estimates, water in Chatfield in 4 to 6 years? <br /> <br />Tom: We will get there, if you don't mind waiting <br /> <br />Rhonda: This just came up, describe your vision how this would work in mitigation? <br /> <br />Dan: In the broadest perspective, the environmental mitigation, with broad authority to <br />enter into this with Corps, Colorado will be contractually bound to mitigate anything that <br />was identified to be mitigated in the EIS, we would have to make sure it was done, and <br />the Corps will say it will be done property. To actually activate the mitigation, rely on <br />