Laserfiche WebLink
<br />companies and others. Th e existing data is likely to be tailored to a specific enti ty’s needs and is <br />generally narrow ly focused . C ollecting this fragmented water quality data from the many disparate <br />entities and compiling it into a web accessible database could provide benefits to decision makers, <br />planners, water resource managers and o thers . This database would provide for a baseline <br />assessment of water quality in the basin and a common platform to build upon as water quality data is <br />collected in the future. This tool would allow for trend and spatial analysis , identify constituents o f <br />concern and the identif ication of specific data gaps. <br /> <br />As a request from the WSRA Basin Account, the applicant must meet all four of the Threshold <br />Criteria o f the WSRA Criteria and Guidelines provided below . <br /> <br /> <br />1. The water activity meets the eligibility requirements outlined in Part 2 of the Criteria and <br />Guidelines. <br /> <br />2. The water activity is consistent with Section 37 - 75 - 102 Colorado Revised Statutes. <br />3 . The water activity underwent an evaluation and approval process and was approved by the <br />Basin Roundtable ( BRT) and the application includes a description of the results of the BRT’s <br />evaluation and approval of the activity. At a minimum, the description must include the level of <br />agreement reached by the roundtable, including any minority opinion(s) if there was not general <br />agreement for the activity. The description must also include reasons why general agreement <br />was not reached (if it was not), including who opposed the activity and why they opposed it. <br />Note - If this information is included in the letter from the roundtable chair simply reference that <br />letter. <br /> <br />4. The water activity meets the provisions of Section 37 - 75 - 104(2) (c) , Colorado Revised Statutes. <br /> <br />After a thorough review of the application , staff believes that criteria 1 - 3 have been adequately meet. <br />Conc erning the second criteria , that the project must be consistent with 37 - 75 - 102 CRS (i.e. the water <br />activity funded through the WSRA shall not negatively impact others water rights ) , the applicants <br />provided relatively explicit language on their intent of th is project. They state: <br /> <br />“We do not intend any of the data to be collected in County/City monitoring efforts to be used <br />to impact water rights. We intend in the future to collect high quality data for the basis of <br />collaborative efforts in defining curr ent conditions and identifying significant water quality <br />problems should they exist or alleviating undue concern if none are found. <br /> <br />To alleviate our concern about this data impacting water rights it is our understanding that <br />Department of Health does no t include jurisdiction over water rights should this data be used <br />in a standards setting process. We reiterate that our intent is only to more fully understand the <br />status of the quality of water in the Upper Basin and, should any significant problems be <br />f ound, to work jointly with the Roundtable, as well as with other interested parties, on <br />solutions.” <br /> <br />Staff had some concerns regarding the fourth criteria, that the project must be consistent with 37 - 75 - <br />104 (2)(c) CRS. In summary, this section requires th at the Basin Roundtables develop basin - wide <br />consumptive and non - consumptive water supply needs assessments, conduct an analysis of available <br />unappropriated waters within the basin, and propose projects or methods, both structural and <br />nonstructural, for mee ting those needs and uti lizing waters where appropriate. In determining <br />whether the project is consistent with 37 - 75 - 10 4 (2)(c) CRS, staff had hoped to find a solid nexus <br />between the development of a water quality database and meeting the basin’s non - consu mptive <br /> - 2 - <br />