Laserfiche WebLink
YA,I~PA-w~TE ~V~R ~.~S~l~ R~~~DTA~L~ <br />P~ Box 77496$ <br />Steamboat Springs, C~ 80477 <br />1V1r. Rick Brown <br />interstate Water 1~lanagen~ent and Development Section <br />COL~RAD~ WATER CONSERVATION BaARD <br />15$0 Logan Street, Suite 600 <br />Denver, Ca $0203 <br />Ricl~.brown ,state.co.~~s <br />Gentlemen <br />The Yampa-White River Basin Roundtable approved the Sparks Reservoir Geotecl~nical and <br />Preliminary Feasibility Study application for fending from our Basin Account Fund in the <br />Amount of ~ 16000. The applicant for such study funding is the Vermillion Ranch Limited <br />Partnership, 148831VICRD 10n, Maybell Co 81.640, ATT: T, Wright Dickinson, partner <br />two-i htdicki~ason c~~vennillionrancl~l .com. <br />This Approval letter supports the applications approval by the C~LQRAD~ WATER <br />CONSERVATION BARD. <br />The applicant followed the Roundtable process for evaluating activities, including a thorough <br />discussion of the issues surrounding a single private entity application. The Roundtable <br />approved the application at our meeting on May 7~~' 200$ by a show of lands vote, with 11 <br />members voting in favor and 3 members voting against. <br />The concerns of the mi~~ority are as follows. Jeff Devere and Kent Vertrees expressed concern <br />that the Roundtable did not Have an adequate process for the prioritization of the allocation of <br />Basin funds, and that such a process should be determined by the Roundtable prior to approval of <br />a request from a single owner private proj ect applicant. Dan Craig expressed the position that no <br />representative member of any board that he is on should be allowed to benefit personally and <br />directly from the board's action, and was concerned about a perceived conflict of interest since <br />T. Wright Dickinson is a member of the applicant entity, presented the request, and also sits on <br />the Roundtable as the Green River Basin Representative. <br />Mr. Dickinson made the presentation of the application, and participated in the discussion, but <br />abstained from the vote. ether voting members expressed views that there was no conflict of <br />interest, and expressed views that t11e prioritization on a first-came, f rstwserved basis was <br />adequate, <br />~ Sinc ly, //// <br />1 I ; !~ <br />k <br />e ~ ~ <br />~~ Thomas R. Sharp, <br />Chairman <br />y,~ l <br />