Oct 14 08 South Platte Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternative Ag Transfer Methods Sub-Committee: Jim Yahn: Met earlier today: some in our subcommittee came up with a grant to get some CWCB money for alternatives. Don Ament: Team: Greg ILernohan. Lisa Darling, Aurora. Matt Lehmberg: Project Engineer, Reagan Waskom, project with CSU. --as Commissioner of Agwent to Corn Growers board, this board was concerned that their most valuable resource was diminishing, thus, they had a no. 1 priority- seeing the need for water management, simultaneously, the CWCB sees need so CWCB put funds forth for studies. First part of this program has already happened. Brown & Caldwell went to multiple ditch meetings, ultimately, new partnership formed: grant would be dependent on having water. Thus, DU has the ability- to offer ivet water and recharge water to give recharge credits. The end user is an important partner, Aurora has been working for ag producers in ways they can help. CSU has been working on this for a long time (Regan and Prithcard). Matt Lehmberg as the project engineer put grant together. We believe that it would be very useful to have a letter of support. Note that this is not money from WASA, but other funding from CWCB. Copies of application available and questions to Matt. Matt Lehmberg: 2 things to accomplish: develop 3 wetland projects that are supplied by alternative transfer methods, the recharge water would be available to other water users: would like to develop guidance that other water users could consider, administrative and operational requirements vis a vis alternative ag water transfer methods. Overview: list of candidate projects examined by DU: names not available vet, look at general questions as per what would need to be done for pulling off water transfers. What is abilitv of DU or the farmer to exchange recharge credits up the river to other water users that would be interested in using that water, what are the retiming parameters, thus, general questions will be answered in evaluating candidate projects; 3 projects will be chosen to give answers to return flow questions, economic implications of the projects. Projects will be developed then take lessons learned and put together guidance for other water users to evaluate their options and requirements. Summaiv report will then be generated for CWCB to disseminate state-wide. Jim Yahn: Out of subcommittee we recommend that the Roundtable support this. This is something that came out of the Roundtable and our committee will be involved and will receive updates so that we can help focus on benefits for Joe Frank: Our questions were answered, however, important to point out that recharge credits also can include storage. And that the recharge component utilizes our concepts. Important to support. Moves that the roundtable writes a letter of support to CWCB. Mike Applegate: Seconds. Discussion: Mike Shimmin: Question vis a vis timing, perhaps not the only one here, but I would like to read this before we vote on this. Could we table this before next month as this won't go to CWCB until November meeting? This will be presented to CWCB on November 18 or 19. Letter of support could be generated by meeting. 4