Laserfiche WebLink
<br />**Ifthe current ditch recharge values can be assured or other wise protected, that <br />would mean that only about 25 more wells would be required to meet the 27,000 <br />AF commitment. <br /> <br />VII. Issues: <br /> <br />1. Participants, currently 3 are interested in participating that lie west of <br />Tamarack SW A (Condon, Soboda, Stramberg) and 5 that lie east (Overland <br />Trail Ranch, Sedgewick, Watchem, Fonder and Like). <br />2. Public Lands - Need an Operating Agreement that provides long-term <br />certainty, defines who pays for what, defines who operates, defines who does <br />the administration and accounting, defines how the accounting is done, <br />defines who gets augmentation credits and who does not, defines state roles <br />and responsibilities (DNR, CDOW, CWCB, SEa), describes appropriate <br />justifications for all actions. <br />3. Public Lands - Need to investigate the federal nexus issues and what if any <br />limitations they may place on any operating plan or agreement. <br />4. Private Lands - Leadership roles need to be established for developing 3- <br />party contracts (landowner, state, program?) and establish a duration and <br />individual operating plans. <br />5. Private Lands - A policy for eqitiably sharing in the benefits of participation <br />needs to be established and leadership in developing that policy placed. <br />6. Existing Plans - Need to identify and enter into agreements that "lock up" the <br />current unused portions for the benefit of the 3-state program. Are there <br />beneficial use, injury or other decree issues that need to be addressed? How <br />do we protect those benefits? Does these benefits simply help 3-state <br />program or can they be used to offset post 1997 depletions? Need to <br />establish fair market value (current cost of developing wells is about $11.00 \ <br />AF). Will the federal agencies and other states accept a coordinated program <br />of this nature? <br />7. Can one or more reservoirs be used in conjunction with the identified <br />"Tamarack Plan" to provide increased benefits or operational flexibility? <br />Should the CWCB proceed with its Reservoir Feasibility Study or work <br />closely with GASP to develop such a plan or do both? <br /> <br />73'F,~? <br /> <br />J/-ve.r I! ~rej /6". <br /> <br />rsp <br /> <br />F Vrl'..g es;? <br />