Laserfiche WebLink
enough away from the river. The lower basin is much closer to <br />the river. Also the upper basin is much larger. <br />Bert Weaver: Seconds. <br />Discussion: <br />Bob Streeter: Will this change the cost figures? <br />Ralf: Yes, but because the area is not reduced that much. <br />1.2million acre feet for Upper Basin... storage capacity. <br />Area wise: Upper Basin is about 70%. <br />Bob Streeter: Would this equate in a 30% drop? <br />Ralf Not really because of data collection and project manager <br />costs will not significantly change. I'kvant to drill 8 wells, I <br />would just shift these to the Upper from the Lower. <br />Mike Shimmin: Reluctant to bring this up. Reason for the <br />distinction invites this. Know that there is proposal to designate a <br />new designation in the Box Elder designation. Fact is that most <br />of the water that is in the aquifer today and had been pumped by <br />wells comes from South Platte through FRICO, Burlington and <br />Henderson ditch systems. These ends in the Lost Creek Basin. <br />When this basin was designated, engineer found that "natural <br />ground water" was the water there. Thus drawing a line of <br />distinction in this basin invites problem. <br />Bill Jerke: Was looking for discussion on boundary. <br />Mike Shimmin: This is a political boundaiv, the piece north of <br />176 is hydrologically part of the basin. When the designation was <br />formed, ranchers did not want to pay the mill levy. This is not a <br />hydrologic-geologic boundary. <br />Ken Huson: Other point is that this entire basin needs to be <br />studied to understand the flow of water, must be enough <br />geotechnical study. So impacts of potential of storage need to be <br />studied. Need at least one hole down there. <br />Mike Shimmin: Related point is that the water rights piece of <br />this must be studied. Therefore, need to study the entire basin <br />because this is going to be a thorny issue vis a vis a matter of <br />water rights law whether this project will be viable. This is not <br />really a storage project; the water does not stay in any particular <br />location. You put in uphill, it will go downhill. Therefore, to get <br />to the water rights question. must get to the entire study. <br />Bill Jerke: I agree to remove the qualifier and restate the motion <br />to approve the application as presented. <br />Bert Weaver: Second. <br />Jim Yalm calls vote: Motion passes unanimously. <br />Potential WSRA Applications: <br />o Ducks Unlimited will submit an application on development of <br />recharge <br />o Mike Shimmin: Groundwater recharge project in Morgan <br />County and working kvith DU to work with them on that project. <br />Update on previously approved applications <br />o Lower South Platte Water Protection and Restoration: Greg <br />Kernohan: things moving forward, MOU is being completed, <br />final design on the projects; and as per the application approved <br />2months ago: North Platte approved, Metro support pending, had <br />14