Laserfiche WebLink
They do have a water conservation plan in the works, as part of an overall land use plan. <br />Gary Barber asked for consensus. Consensus was given by the roundtable. <br />Harris commented that he was impressed and glad to watch our process (where the rubber hits <br />the road). He knows that state government doesn't always appreciate how badly this money is needed. <br />• Protect Our Wells: Wayne Vanderschuere <br />Wayne introduced Sandra Martin, president of Protect Our Wells. Protect Our Wells is an <br />organization to advocate for private well owners in eastern EI Paso County. Primary purpose is to <br />educate the public about issues that pertain to the Denver Basin. <br />The proposed project is to create a local network of existing and new monitoring wells. They <br />want to assess available water and possible water depletion. It is a 3-year project. Need to quantify <br />amount of water available for private well owners, water providers and agriculture. <br />Total request is $220,000, combined. See www.protectourwells.org to see the complete <br />proposal or an executive summary. <br />Julia Murphy: gave an overview of the Denver Basin Aquifer. The Denver Basin Aquifer is a <br />major water source of water at this time, and is considered non-renewable. Depletion from well use does <br />impact stream flow. There is a known depletion occurring in the Castle Rock area, at a possible rate of <br />35' per year. In most of the other portions of the basin, there are very few monitoring points. The project <br />was designed to address a data gap in SWSI figures, identify the greatest risk areas and propose <br />management solutions. <br />The study covers 13,000 acres, and there are 26,000 wells in the study area. The project <br />process will be to identify and optimize 25 new wells, 25 current wells and 12 dedicated wells. Will then <br />collect measurements twice per year for three years. <br />Tom Piltingsrud: have you approached Elbert and EI Paso County commissioners to request <br />matching funds? There are no matching cash funds. He thinks that those counties that are expecting <br />growth should contribute. <br />Dan Henrichs: you stated that there are 26,000 individual wells. Are they all independent <br />wells? How many actual wells are in Protect Our Wells organization? Answer: Membership in Protect <br />Our Wells is about 300 members. <br />Jeris Danielson: opposes the application. There are two groundwater mgmt districts not <br />putting any money in and two counties not putting any money in. We (the Roundtable) are going to run <br />out of money. We haven't spent any basin funds on non-consumptive needs yet. Does not oppose the <br />proposal going forward for state funds, but does oppose the use of basin funds. <br />Dave Stone: Part of the money would be spent on the interface between Denver Basin and <br />Upper Big Sandy. He would like to see the application go forward at the state level but not from basin <br />funds. It does involve more area than just our basin. <br />Tom Young: agrees with Jeris. He has been monitoring wells in the Upper Arkansas for the <br />last 20 years, funding from within in partnership with USGS. He agrees that it's important information, but <br />thinks that they should be paying for it themselves. <br />SeEtta Moss: Thinks that we should let it go forward for state funds. <br />Jim Broderick: Seems like this should be a tri-basin application or a state application. <br />Julia: They are going to the Metro RT to request $20,000 in funding. The study does not cover <br />any area in the South Platte. <br />Gary: There is not consensus to move the app forward on basin funds. Asked Wayne if he <br />would like to move forward at the state level. Wayne deferred to the applicants. The choice is then to <br />move forward as state funds only, if we have consensus to do that. The other choice would be to see if <br />anyone at the RT would like to bring forward a motion to vote on the app at the next meeting. That would <br />require a 75% majority vote. <br />Tom Verquer: Thinks they need to form an organization of users, and get funding from them, <br />then go to the state. Does not agree to move the app forward in the present condition. <br />Tom Brubaker: Agrees with Tom. Thinks that the app is flawed, and has a problem that they <br />represent only 300 people out of 26,000. I don't think we ought to say since it's state money we don't <br />care about the validity of the application; I think we still have a responsibility to say that it's something <br />that's needed in the Arkansas Basin. I can't argue with the need, but I have a problem giving an <br />organization that represents 300 people out of 26,000 this kind of money. <br />-, <br />