Laserfiche WebLink
ß®µ¿²­¿­ Þ¿­·² α« ² ¼¬¿¾´» <br />Ѻº·½·¿´ λ½±®¼­ Ô±½¿ ¬·±² <br /> ½ñ± Þ±¿®¼ ±º É¿¬»® É ± ®µ­ ±º Ы »¾´± <br /> ߬¬»²¬·±²æ ß´¿² Ø¿³»´ñÔ»­´·» Ó¿®¬·²»¦ <br /> ÐòÑò Þ±¨ ì ðð <br />Ы»¾´± ÝÑ èïððîóðìðð <br />January 16, 2008 <br />Mr. Rick Brown <br />Inter s ta te W a ter M a nage m e nt Developm ent Section <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1580 Logan Street, Suite 1600 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Water Supply Reserve Account 2008 Grant A pplication for the GARNA in support of the <br />Arkansas Headw a ters Recreation Area <br />Dear Rick: <br />I am pleased to provide you with thisWater S upply Reserve Account Gran t Application for $57,954.50 of <br />Basin Funds in support of the Arkansas Headwaters R ecreation Area. This grant, if approved, will support <br />both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water in the upper reaches of the Arka nsas River. The grant <br />envisions planning and engineering of four (4) headgate diversion points on the ri ver that are considered <br />hazards to p a ssage by recreational b o aters. <br />The consumptive use component will be greater efficiency of diversion by agricultural ditch com p anies. To <br />this end, m e mbers of the roundtable raised concerns th at the respective ditch com p anies were fully on board <br />with this study. At the tim e of th e presentation, verbal approvals had be en obtained from all affected ditch <br />com p anies; however consensus approval of this app lication was conditioned on written docum entation of <br />that fact prior to the CWCB m eeting. <br />On the non-consum ptive side, signator ies to the Arkansas River Voluntar y Flow Agreem ent raised concerns <br />about transparency during the study pr ocess. As a prim ary beneficiary of both the flow agreem ent and this <br />application, the representative of the Arkansas Headwaters Recrea tion Area, Mr. Rob White, offered <br />assurances that the process would be inclusive of all interested parties. <br />W ith these concerns addressed, and subject to the requested docum e ntation, th e grant application was <br />approved by consensus without a dissen ting opinion. Another factor in fa vor of this item was the nearly <br />50% m a tch provided by one of the owners of a diversion point. <br />