My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SPWRAP Conference Call Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
SPWRAP Conference Call Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:40 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 12:28:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.400
Description
SPWRAP
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
12/21/2006
Author
SPWRAP
Title
SPWRAP Conference Call Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
SPWRAP Nleeting Minutes <br />December 21, 2006 <br />Alan Berryman, Steve Simms, Jon Altenhofen, and Ted Kowalsl<i agreed to work on the task <br />lists. <br />It was agreed that fiirther discussions with the DOW are needed on the use of the FTE <br />and what the DOW believes the FTE's work responsibilities would be for both DOW and <br />SPWRAP. There is also the question of whether a DOW FTE can assist with recharge activities <br />on private lands. It was suggested that a meeting with DOW be set at the beginning of 2007 and <br />that SPWRAP should have the AG's opinion on Lise of the SCTF to fund the FTE before sLich a <br />meeting. Austin agreed to set-up the nzeeting. <br />6. The Board discussed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Natural <br />Resources (DNR). <br />Exhibit A for the MOA is still needed and additional thinking will be required by the <br />Board. The costs to Colarado (preliminary estimates) to fulfill the state obligations to the <br />Prograin are needed. The first draft should be completed by the second week of January 2007 <br />and include estimates to develop water for Tamarack I& II as well as costs for modeling and <br />accounting. Deb Freeman, Alan Berryman, and Steve Simnls agreed to worl< on this issue. <br />7. No Program report was provided since little has changed since the last SPWRAP meeting. <br />8. Discussion on the immediate set-up tasks and responsibilities of the State of Colarado to the <br />Program. <br />Ted Kowalski asked about SPWRAP's status on issuing an RFP to hire a consuiltant to <br />provide the required future depletion accounting under the Program. Jon Altenhofen said he is <br />developing a draft reporting form for review that cities/municipalities will need to fill out. It was <br />discussed that a sub-committee will likely be needed after the January 2007 SPWRAP meeting in <br />order to move forward on this reporting issue. Deb Freeman stated that State reporting will be <br />critical since the FWS has told us that they are going to focus on Colorado's fLilfillment of <br />Program obligations and not on individual user compliance. <br />The State Demographer Report to the Program is due within 90 days from the start of the <br />Program or by March 31, 2007. The State Demographer has indicated that they will be able to <br />provide the report within the 90 days to include estimated population growth during the first <br />reporting period (December 31, 2006 - December 31, 2008). <br />9. It was identified that a DNR/SPWRAP Operating Committee is needed and should be discussed <br />at the January 2007 meeting. <br />10. Discussion on Water Users representative and alternate to the Governance Committee (GC). <br />SPWRAP needs to identify and appoint a water-users representative and an alternate to <br />participate on the Program's GC. These representatives' names need to be sent to Mitch King at <br />the USFWS regional office before the first GC meeting in February 2007. Discussion on this <br />issue identified the need far the water-users representative to have solid institutional knowledge <br />and history of the Program. Additionally, the alternate should be from the "next generation", <br />someone with a scientific and technical background. Lastly, a second alternate should be an <br />attorney. <br />Additional discussion raised the issue of how will GC representatives and alternates time <br />be paid far? Will SPWRAP cover the costs or will individual entities cover their expenses? The <br />Page 2 of 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.