My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Approved Minutes March 2008 CBRT
CWCB
>
Basin Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
Approved Minutes March 2008 CBRT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:56:36 PM
Creation date
8/20/2008 4:41:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Title
Colorado Minutes 3/08
Date
3/24/2008
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.
/
4
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
how will we augment our water supplies in the future? M&I uses will continue to take <br />water from agricultural uses and harm recreational opportuiuties. <br />6. Grants Update: The grant applications for the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan - Ph. II <br />and Grand County's Stream Management Plan Phase III were not reconul7ended for <br />approval by CWCB staff. The other applications from the Roundtable (the Old Dillon <br />Reservoir Enlargement and the Fraser River Settling Pond) were approved. Mark Fuller <br />is resubmitting the grant application for the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan - Ph. II. <br />Lurline Curran noted that Grand County had not yet decided if it would resubmit its <br />application, as this was the second time the application had not been recommended for <br />funding by CWCB staff. The study would continue, regardless of CWCB funding. <br />Attendees discussed CWCB staff's continued assertion that projects such as the Roaring <br />Fork Watershed Plan and the Grand County Stream Management Plan constitute <br />unacceptable challenges to Colorado water law. The Roundtable has had repeated <br />discussions with CWCB staff on this matter and st~•ongly disagrees with CWCB staff's <br />position. The question was asked, `Zs the C'WC,B staff no~~~ exercising veto pol~~er over <br />grant a~~lications t°ecomnzer~ded by tl2e Ro2a~~dtables? " Roundtable membership is <br />greatly concerned by statements such as the one reportedly made by Rick Brown -that <br />the hydrographs recommended in such watershed studies "must have some play in them" <br />for M&I diversions. <br />Johu1 Redifer expressed his belief that good data (such as the information we would <br />collect under the two projects whuch were not approved for fiinding) should be used and <br />that recommendations for changes in statutes and regulations should come from such <br />data. <br />7. Committee Reports: <br />a. Educational Outreach Committee: Rod Sharp presented the Conunittee's <br />recommendations pertaining to Town Hall Meetings. These meetings would be in partial <br />satisfaction of HB OS-ll7Ts requirement that the Basin Roundtables educate the public <br />about the process and collect public input. <br />The Committee concluded that people would not travel > 15-20 miles to attend these <br />meetings; thus, the Committee is now recommending that Town Hall Meetings be held <br />throughout the Basin -with each Roundtable member responsible for spearheading a <br />meeting in their jurisdiction, with the Conunittee's assistance. The Committee also <br />recommended that meetings not last > 90 minutes. Rod went through a sample agenda, <br />flyer and PowerPoint presentation for the meetings, which included suggested topics for <br />discussion. <br />Feedback on the presentation included the following comments from attendees: <br />i. Kirk Klancke suggested that partnering with other organizations (e.g., Trout <br />Unlimited) might be appropriate for these meetings. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.