My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes Dec 2007 CBRT
CWCB
>
Basin Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
Minutes Dec 2007 CBRT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:57:44 PM
Creation date
4/23/2008 12:50:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Title
Colorado basin December 07 Minutes
Date
12/17/2007
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
flows on the Roaring Fork. Richards claimed that it is not clear where water is being <br />diverted, whether from Hunter Creek, Lost Man Creek, or in the Roaring Fork headwaters. <br />Pitkin County is concerned that its residents will be forced to reuse water for drii~lcing <br />supplies. Pitkin County stated these concerns in a 2007 letter to Senator Salazar (which <br />Broderick, McHugh, Colorado Springs, the Twin Lakes Reservoir Company, and the CWCB <br />all claimed they had never seen), and Pitkin County wants these concerns addressed in a <br />contract before any PSOP projects commence. Pitkin County desires written agreements <br />regarding late season flows, minimum instream flows, and flushing flows. <br />Basin of ori~protection. Richards explained that the Western Slope favors basin of origin <br />protection, but that it does not yet exist in Colorado. Dave Merritt mentioned that the Fry- <br />Ark Project, the Colorado Big-Thompson Project, Wolford Mountain Reservoir, and Ruedi <br />Reservoir bypass flows all provide potential basin of origin protection. <br />j. Section 1041 relief. Chuck Ogilby questioned whether Pitkin County could exercise its 1041 <br />powers to limit Roaring Fork diversions that were environmentally damaging. <br />k. Aspen's concerns. Phil Overeynder stated that Aspen is concerned that diverting additional <br />peak flows to the Eastern Slope could prevent the aquifer underlying Aspen from recharging, <br />and this could interfere with wells that pump drinking water for Aspen residents. Increasing <br />Fry-Ark diversions from 54,000 to 69,000 AF concerns Aspen. However, if increased <br />Eastern Slope storage would permit additional water to flow down the Roaring Fork, then <br />Aspen could support PSOP legislation. <br />9. Upcoming town hall meetings. Rod Sharp of CSU Extension Services reported on the <br />December 11 Arkansas Basin town hall meeting which he organized in Roclcy Ford. About 25- <br />30 persons came, and that poor weather contributed to the low turnout. He stated that the town <br />hall meetings focus on the Gap, emphasize that every river in the state is over-appropriated, and <br />discuss the risks to Colorado's water resources. <br />a. Rod plans 14 additional town hall meetings in 2008, 3 of which will be in the Colorado River <br />Basin. One is planned for Grand Junction in the spring of 2008. Rachel Richards mentioned <br />that one meeting in Grand Junction is not enough. Ken Neubecker recommended Glenwood <br />Springs is a better, more central location in the Colorado Basin. Caroline Bradford <br />recommended that Rod partner with other water education groups to get additional publicity. <br />Louis Meyer reconul7ended focusing on the general public, and suggested that CBRT <br />members personally request members of the public to attend. He also recommended <br />publishing a meaningful article in local papers prior to the meeting. Kirk Klancke mentioned <br />that Grand County holds meetings titled Water Wise Wednesdays, and suggested that atown <br />hall in Grand County be held on the same night at the same location. <br />10. Senate Bill 179 /Water for the 21`t Century Grant awards. <br />a. All proposed grant requests were approved by the CBRT See the November 2007 <br />minutes for a description of the below listed projects. <br />Proposal CBRT $ CWCB $ <br />Grand County Phase 2 Stream Flow Mgmt Plan $100,000 <br />Roaring Fork Watershed Study Phase 2 40,000 <br />I:AInterbasin Compact Coimnittee~Basin Roundtables\Colorado~Minutes~Ivlumtes Dec 2007 CBKT.doc 5 4~2, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.