My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Membership Issues
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Membership Issues
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:40 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 12:23:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.400
Description
SPWRAP
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Unknown
Title
Membership Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Membership issues re: SPWRAP, Inc. <br />As we go further and further into the formation of SPWRAP, Inc., <br />more and more questions arise as to how certain entities or persons <br />should be included in the organization. Following are some examples <br />to start discussions: <br />1. Division of Wildlife <br />Should they fit into class X and how do we calculate their <br />Units? Possibilities: they are class X and treated similar to <br />a ditch company, but on diversions, not land acreage. E.g. <br />5yr avg. diversions in AF = Units <br />2. Members in projects that supply multiple entities (like Windy <br />Gap Firming or Reuter Hess) <br />For municipal-type projects involving multiple participants, I <br />have told some that each participant would count their part <br />of such a project as part of their overall supply portfolio. So, <br />if they have delivered water from that project, it is added to <br />their total deliveries for the purposes of SPWRAP. <br />A related issue comes up regarding an entity that is part of a <br />multiple-participant project like those above, but doesn't <br />belong to SPWRAP. What does the FWS do about them <br />and is the overall project jeopardized (so to speak) by the <br />lack of full participant participation in SPWRAP? I would say <br />that if the state is offsetting according to their water plans, <br />the project should remain covered for ESA. <br />3. Water providers that have a common filter plant that delivers <br />water to multiple entities. <br />Does, or can, the filter plant be the provider rather than the <br />entities themselves (example is like Carter Lake Filter Plant <br />that serves two large rural domestic providers who in turn <br />serve several small towns)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.