Laserfiche WebLink
Arkansas Basin Roundtable <br />Official Records Location <br />c/o Board of Water Wor~ks of Pueblo <br />Attention~ Alan Hatnel/Leslie Martinez <br />P.O. Box 400 <br />Pueblo CO 81002-0400 <br />January 16, 2008 <br />Mr. Riclc Brown <br />Interstate Water Management Development Section <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1580 Logai7 Street, Suite 1600 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Water Supply Reserve Account 2008 Grant Application for the GARNA in support of the <br />Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area <br />Dear Riclc: <br />I am pleased to provide you with thisWater Supply Reserve Account Grant Application for $57,954.50 of <br />Basin Funds in support of the Arlcansas Headwaters Recreation Area. This grant, if approved, will support <br />both consumptive ai7d noi7-consumptive uses of water in the upper reaches of the Arlcansas River. The grant <br />envisions plannii7g and engineering of four (4) headgate diversion points on the river that are considered <br />hazards to passage by recreational boaters. <br />The consumptive use component will be greater efficiency of diversion by agricultural ditch companies. To <br />this end, members of the roundtable raised concerns that the respective ditch companies were fully on board <br />with this study. At the time of the presentation, verbal approvals had been obtained from all affected ditch <br />companies; however consensus approval of this application was conditioned on written docunlentation of <br />that fact prior to the CWCB meeting. <br />On the non-consumptive side, signatories to the Arlcansas River Voluntary Flow Agreement raised concerns <br />about transparency during the study process. As a primary beneficiary of both the flow agreement and this <br />applicatioi7, the representative of the Arlcansas Headwaters Recreation Area, Mr. Rob White, offered <br />assurances that the process would be inclusive of all interested parties. <br />With these concerns addressed, and subject to the requested docuinentation, the grant application was <br />approved by consensus without a dissenting opinion. Another factor in favor of this item was the nearly <br />50% match provided by one of the owners of a diversion point. <br />