09g‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/18/2008
• Description: Colorado Water Resources & Power Development Authority Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

a(~j Page 1 of 2
Brown, Rick
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:15 PM
To: Brown, Rick
Subject: WSRA applications
March 13, 2008
Rick Brown,
Subject: Review of the Water Supply Reserve Account (WSRA) applications for Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) consideration and decision, reference your memo to CWCB Members
dated March 19, 2008 for Agenda Item 26.
I will be unable to attend CWCB meeting on .March 19, 2008 when this Agenda Item will be considered
due to our Board meeting, therefore I wanted to share some thoughts as an Interbasin Compact
Committee (IBCC) member and as a member of the joint IBCC/CWCB committee for the Criteria and
Guidelines for the WSRA applications.
1. I fully support the waiver of the 60 da}~ review criteria and expedited pursuit of emergency
funding for the State's rapid response to the mussel detection and potential infestation. I consider this
• an urgent and significant threat to water supply and operations and worthy of such a waiver. However, I
do consider this one time emergency funding to fill a temporary gap that should be filled from other
sustainable funding sources in the immediate future. Moreover, I have heard from a few that believe
that the WSRA should be replenished in the future in an amount equal to this funding request. This
WSRA replenishment is worthy of CWCB and Legislative consideration.
In addition, I would like to seem a similar urgency and attention focused on other invasive species like
tamarisk, Russian olive and such, pine beetle:; and their resultant damage, and proper forestry
management to protect watersheds, all of which also pose a clear and present risk to water supply. The
tamarisk comment was made at Arkansas Roundtable yesterday too, during the mussel discussion.
2. Concerning Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA) application for Roaring Fork
Watershed Plan, Phase II for $40,000. I am concerned about the lack of specificity and absence of
deliverables. It is unclear how this application would contribute to meeting those water supply needs
identified under Section 37-75-104. There are several vague task descriptions that could lead to a
misapplication of State funds that would be inconsistent with Section 37-75-102, thereby risking
application of State funds to activities that do not protect for contractual and property rights and could
be implemented in a way that would diminish, impair, or cause injury to any property, contractual rights,
or water rights. I am also concerned about the absence of acknowledgment or inclusion of other major
water stakeholders in this application and process, such as Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company
(owns and manages the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System, as well as the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (manages and coordinates with Bureau of
Reclamation for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project). Moreover, recent statements and actions by
representatives local government officials from the Roaring Fork are contrary to the spirit of the
Colorado Water for the 21st Century (1177) Legislation, factually inaccurate, and inconsistent with
Intergovernmental Agreements between east ~~nd west slope entities, making this application highly
3/13/2008